News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Michigan v. EPA

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,...

Mercury and Toxic Standards for Power Plants: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule Reaffirming Appropriate and...

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,... on

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published on February 15th a final rule reaffirming its decision that it remains appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) from power...more

WilmerHale

Energy Sector Alert Series: Appellate Courts Hearing More Energy Cases

WilmerHale on

In this eight-week alert series, we are providing a broad look at current and emerging issues facing the energy sector. Attorneys from across the firm will discuss issues ranging from environmental disclosures and risk...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Long and Winding Road of the Clean Power Plan Litigation

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) is without a doubt one of the most complex and controversial regulatory undertakings in the EPA’s history, so much so that it was challenged in court – twice – before it was even published in the...more

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law

MATS, Take Two: EPA Still Supports the Rule (And EPA Is Correct)

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law on

Late last week, EPA issued a Supplemental Finding, concluding that it is still “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. The Supplemental Finding was...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Energy Insights: An Update from the Second Quarter of 2015

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In this edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s Energy Insights Newsletter our Energy and Clean Technologies team covers important developments in Q2 2015 for the energy industry including court protection for companies using hydraulic...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Big Decisions: The 2014-15 U.S. Supreme Court Term in Review

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

The 2014-15 United States Supreme Court term featured a number of significant cases to the business community. The Faegre Baker Daniels appellate advocacy group is committed to helping our clients understand the Court’s...more

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Supreme Court Rejects EPA Mercury Emissions Rule

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on

On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt upon the future of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) failed to adequately consider the costs of...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

EPA Must Consider Costs in Deciding Whether to Regulate HAPs From Power Plants

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

Last week, in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unreasonable for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to refuse to consider costs in connection with its finding that it was “appropriate and...more

Williams Mullen

Supreme Court Ruling on EPA Mercury Rule: Utilities Wins the Battle, But Lose the War

Williams Mullen on

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants if the agency determines that such “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying the hazards the...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Holds EPA Must Consider Costs in Deciding to Regulate Power Plants

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29th decision in Michigan v. EPA, taken together with another significant CAA opinion from last term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, demonstrates the Court’s proclivity for subjecting...more

Allen Matkins

California Environmental Law & Policy Update - July 2015

Allen Matkins on

Environmental and Policy Focus - BP pays record $18.7 billion to settle claims in Gulf oil spill Bloomberg - Jul 2: BP Plc reached a record $18.7 billion agreement to settle all federal and state claims from the 2010...more

McGuireWoods LLP

Supreme Court Strikes Down EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard

McGuireWoods LLP on

Delivering a sharp blow to President Obama’s efforts to regulate coal plants, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finding that...more

Burr & Forman

Supreme Court Halts Implementation of EPA Rule on Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: The Practical Effects Are...

Burr & Forman on

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted further implementation of a U.S. EPA’s regulation limiting mercury and other hazardous air toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. In a 5-4 decision, the...more

Saul Ewing LLP

Because EPA Failed to Consider Costs to Industry, Supreme Court Overturns Power Plant Regulation

Saul Ewing LLP on

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ("MATS") for electric utility steam generating units has been reversed and remanded with the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Michigan v. EPA on June 29, 2015. Writing for...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decision Could Limit EPA's Authority Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another warning to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against overstepping its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In Michigan v. Environmental Protection...more

Stinson LLP

Supreme Court Rejects EPA's Rule Regulating Hazardous Air Polluntants from Power Plants

Stinson LLP on

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong not to consider the cost of compliance when it decided to regulate mercury and other air toxic substances emitted from power...more

Nossaman LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates EPA's Power Plant Mercury Emissions Regulation

Nossaman LLP on

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency invalidated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Toxic Air Standards (MATS) regulation by a 5 to 4 vote, finding that...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

The Supreme Court Strikes Down the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Latham & Watkins LLP on

While the Court’s decision marks a symbolic defeat for EPA, it may not significantly alter power plant operators’ compliance efforts. In a much anticipated decision delivered on the last day of the term, the Supreme...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Considerable Costs—Supreme Court Requires EPA to Consider Cost Impacts of Power Plant Toxic Emissions Rules

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

A closely divided Supreme Court has determined that EPA must consider cost when regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to regulate toxic emissions...more

Mintz - ML Strategies

Energy & Environment Update - June 2015 #5

Mintz - ML Strategies on

In This Issue: - Energy and Climate - Congress - Administration - Department of Energy - Department of Interior - Department of State - Department of Transportation -...more

WilmerHale

Supreme Court Rejects EPA Rulemaking Process for Power Plant Emissions Standards

WilmerHale on

The US Supreme Court held yesterday that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unreasonably failed to consider costs when it made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power...more

Stoel Rives LLP

Air Quality Law Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Blocks EPA Coal Plant Air Toxics Standards

Stoel Rives LLP on

Earlier today the US Supreme Court issued a 5 to 4 decision in Michigan v. EPA that struck down the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule. The MATS rule imposes stringent...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

US Supreme Court Nixes EPA Regulations on Mercury Emissions – Must Consider Costs Early!

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on

In Michigan v. EPA, the U. S. Supreme Court invalidated EPA’s rules limiting emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants, ruling that EPA inappropriately ignored the costs of regulation – particularly...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, and two other consolidated cases, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably,...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court: EPA Must Consider Cost Of Implementing Regulations

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the EPA acted unreasonably when it refused to consider the cost of implementing its Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS). The MATS rule, issued in 2012,...more

30 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide