WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court objected to a key Obama administration air pollution regulation and dealt a setback to opponents of the death penalty, endorsing Oklahoma’s method of lethal injection, as the justices on Monday ended their annual term with acrimony.
With its five conservative justices in the majority, the court ruled 5-4 against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, handing a victory to the industry groups and 21 states that challenged the rule as well as Republicans critical of President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda.
The rule stays in effect for the time being, with the case returning to an appeals court that will decide whether it will be thrown out entirely.
“EPA is disappointed that the court did not uphold the rule, but this rule was issued more than three years ago, investments have been made and most plants are already well on their way to compliance,” the agency said in a statement.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there was no reason the ruling should impact the administration’s Clean Power Plan, which is aimed at cutting carbon emissions from existing power plants.
The ruling gave an immediate lift to shares of Peabody Energy Corp., the nation’s largest coal producer, and other coal mining companies, which have been dogged by concerns over the costs of the regulation and slumping coal prices as power companies turn increasingly to natural gas to generate electricity.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing on behalf of the court, said a provision of the Clean Air Act stating that the EPA can regulate power plants for mercury and other toxic pollutants if it deems it “appropriate and necessary” must be interpreted as including a consideration of costs. The EPA had decided it did not have to consider costs at that stage of the process.
“The agency must consider cost — including, most importantly, cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary,” Scalia wrote.
“It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits,” Scalia added.
The legal rationale adopted by the court is unlikely to have broader implications for other environmental regulations, according to lawyers following the case.
Lethal injection
The 5-4 ruling on lethal injection, with the court’s five conservatives in the majority, prompted liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to say for the first time they believe capital punishment as currently practiced may be unconstitutional. They are the only members of the court to have expressed such views.
The decision was a defeat for death penalty foes and for the three death row inmates who challenged the use of a sedative called midazolam as part of Oklahoma’s lethal injection process, saying it cannot achieve the level of unconsciousness required for surgery, making it unsuitable for executions.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court that the inmates had, among other things, failed to show there was an alternative method of execution available that would be less painful.
The inmates failed to demonstrate that “any risk of harm was substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method of execution,” Alito said.
Although the case did not specifically address the constitutionality of the death penalty in general, it brought fresh attention to the ongoing debate over whether the death penalty should continue in the United States at a time when most developed countries have abandoned it.
In his dissenting opinion, Breyer said the court should consider whether the death penalty itself is constitutional. He was joined by Ginsburg, but not his other two liberal colleagues.
The main question before the nine justices was whether the use of midazolam violates the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The drug has been used in executions in Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio and Arizona.
“We believe it highly likely that the death penalty now violates the Eighth Amendment,” Breyer said in a statement he read from the bench.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said Breyer’s arguments were full of “internal contradictions” and were “gobbledy-gook.”
The three-drug process used by Oklahoma prison officials has been under scrutiny since the April 2014 botched execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett. He could be seen twisting on the gurney after death chamber staff failed to place the intravenous line properly.
In other decisions Monday, the court:
— Upheld a voter-approved plan that stripped Arizona state lawmakers of their role in drawing congressional districts.
— Agreed to block temporarily parts of a strict new Texas abortion law that critics say is aimed at shutting down clinics that offer the procedure.
— Accepted an important case for its next term, plunging into a another fight over the contentious issue of affirmative action in college admissions.