This is a Ohio news story, published by The New Republic, that relates primarily to Neil Gorsuch news.
For more Ohio news, you can click here:
more Ohio newsFor more Neil Gorsuch news, you can click here:
more Neil Gorsuch newsFor more environmental science news, you can click here:
more environmental science newsFor more news from The New Republic, you can click here:
more news from The New RepublicOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best science news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like environmental science news, you might also like this article about
ozone regulations. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest justices news, ozone pollution news, environmental science news, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
environmental law firm EarthjusticeThe New Republic
•78% Informative
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ohio and several other states that challenged the EPA 's plan to bring them into compliance with ozone pollution control requirements.
The justices’ ruling allows the EPA ’s plan to remain paused as the states’ challenge proceeds through the courts.
In total, Justice Neil Gorsuch —writing on behalf of the court’s conservative majority—mistakenly referred to nitrous oxide rather than nitrogen oxides five times in his decision.
Sankar : Judges have no relevant expertise to make such determinations but are now entrusted with that power should they hear a case concerning those definitions.
The silver lining in the court’s ruling on Friday is that the justices opted not to call into question every single decision made on the basis of the Chevron doctrine.
VR Score
81
Informative language
81
Neutral language
37
Article tone
informal
Language
English
Language complexity
64
Offensive language
possibly offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
8
Affiliate links
no affiliate links