WASHINGTON -- U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled Wednesday that they are divided over rules from President Barack Obama's administration that would cut emissions from 460 coal-fired power plants.
During arguments Wednesday, justices questioned Environmental Protection Agency controls on mercury and acid gases from the plants owned by Southern Co., American Electric Power Co. and other utilities. Lawyers for power companies and some states said the agency didn't adequately consider costs before imposing rules estimated to cost $9.6 billion a year.
Obama's administration said it considered costs in how it set the rules but wasn't required to do so at the initial stage of deciding whether to issue regulations at all.
That argument was questioned by Justice Antonin Scalia and other Republican-appointed justices, who said it could lead to onerous costs for power companies. Justices appointed by Democrats defended the EPA's decision.
"Costs become relevant later in the process," Justice Elena Kagan said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor added, "All we have to find is a plausible reading to uphold the EPA's interpretation."
The case concerns a 2011 EPA regulation that curtails mercury emissions. The rule, which takes effect next month for most plants, has forced companies to close aging facilities or install expensive equipment to reduce the emissions.
Mercury accumulates in fish and can cause neurological and kidney disorders when people consume those fish.
Courts have given the EPA broad power to interpret the Clean Air Act and impose tighter curbs on emissions from power plants and other facilities.
The question for the court is whether the agency must consider the cost before deciding whether to regulate. The administration contends the Clean Air Act requires that costs be taken into account only at a later stage -- when the EPA is deciding the extent of the regulation.
A federal appeals court in Washington agreed in a 2-1 decision, saying the law gives the EPA broad discretion.
The EPA estimates the rule will cost $9.6 billion annually once fully implemented next year.
A decision is expected by the end of June. The cases are Michigan v. EPA, 14-46; Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 14-47; and National Mining Association v. EPA, 14-49.
Alabama Redistricting
In another case Wednesday, the justices in a 5-4 ruling said a lower court must take another look at whether Alabama's Republican-led Legislature relied too heavily on race when it redrew the state's voting districts in a way that black leaders say limited minority-group voting power.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the lower court should have reviewed claims of racial gerrymandering on a district-by-district level, not just statewide. He also said the court didn't apply the right test when it found that race wasn't the primary motivating factor.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, joined the court's four liberals in the majority, including Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.
State officials said they had no choice but to concentrate black voters in some districts, making neighboring seats more white and apt to elect Republicans. Blacks challenging the state's Republican-drawn maps said black voters should have been somewhat dispersed to increase their influence in elections.
A panel of three federal judges had ruled 2-1 in 2013 that the new districts were not discriminatory and did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.
In dissent, Scalia said the challengers never really proved or even made formal arguments about district-specific claims of racial gerrymandering. He said the majority was allowing the challengers "to take a mulligan," or have a second chance, despite their pursuit of a "flawed litigation strategy."
Scalia's dissent was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Thomas, the court's only black justice, also issued a separate dissent.
"I do not pretend that Alabama is blameless when it comes to its sordid history of racial politics," Thomas said. "But, today the state is not the one that is culpable. Its redistricting effort was indeed tainted, but it was tainted by our voting rights jurisprudence and the uses to which the Voting Rights Act has been put."
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said he was disappointed in Wednesday's ruling but noted that the current plan would stay in effect while the case -- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama -- continues.
UPS Pregnancy Case
Also Wednesday, the court revived a pregnancy-discrimination lawsuit against UPS Inc., saying that lower courts had used the wrong standard to determine whether the company had discriminated against one of its drivers.
The case concerned Peggy Young, a UPS worker whose doctor recommended that she avoid lifting anything heavy after she became pregnant. The company refused to give her lighter duties to accommodate her and placed her on unpaid leave in 2006.
Young sued under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires employers to treat "women affected by pregnancy" the same as "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."
Her lawsuit was dismissed, with a unanimous three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., saying the pregnancy law does not give pregnant women "a 'most favored nation' status."
The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, vacated that decision and said Young deserved another shot at trying to prove that the company had treated her differently from "a large percentage of nonpregnant workers" who may have been offered accommodations.
UPS has since changed its policy to offer light duty to pregnant women.
Breyer wrote the majority opinion in the case, Young v. United Parcel Service, No. 12-1226. Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas dissented.
Information for this article was contributed by Greg Stohr and Mark Drajem of Bloomberg News; by Sam Hananel and Kim Chandler of The Associated Press; and by Adam Liptak of The New York Times.
A Section on 03/26/2015