October Term 2014 · Docket 14-46

Must the EPA weigh costs when regulating power plants?

States argue the EPA ignored costs. The agency says health risks drive the rule.

Official caption
Michigan v. EPA
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Verrilli argued the EPA's reading is natural and permissible.

    He stated the statute directs the agency to focus on health concerns.

    Mr. Lindstrom argued the EPA's view contradicts the statutory text.

    He noted the law uses two distinct terms: necessary and appropriate.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether the EPA must consider economic costs when setting pollution limits for power plants. Michigan and other states claim the agency ignored these costs. The EPA argues that public health concerns alone justify the regulation.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Michigan and other states want the EPA to consider costs when setting pollution limits.

The EPA wants to rely solely on health risks to justify its pollution limits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Michigan argues the law requires the EPA to weigh both necessity and appropriateness, including costs.

The EPA argues the law focuses on health concerns and does not mention costs.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if the EPA ignored technology availability.

Justice Scalia asked for a citation to the lower court opinion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how agencies balance health and economic factors. It shapes future environmental regulations across the country. The outcome affects power plant operations and public health protections.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON