Supreme Court Leak Reveals 2016 Clean Power Plan Deliberations
Internal Supreme Court memos detailing 2016 Clean Power Plan discussions have been leaked.
Why it matters: The leak spotlights rare insight into Supreme Court deliberations, challenging norms of confidentiality. It also sheds light on the judicial approach to environmental regulation and use of the 'shadow docket'—critical issues for lawyers tracking litigation, compliance, and regulatory risk.
- Leaked memos show Chief Justice Roberts' fears of unlawful EPA regulatory burdens.
- Justice Alito warned a stay was needed to uphold judicial review and institutional legitimacy.
- The 2016 Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan was a first-of-its-kind intervention.
- The Clean Power Plan aimed for a 30% cut in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2030.
Hours after the initial report, leaked memos from the Supreme Court surfaced, casting fresh light on the justices' decision to halt the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP) in 2016. The memos, never before made public, detail the internal rationale behind the unprecedented stay.
- Chief Justice John Roberts cited risks of “irreparable harm” if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved ahead, pointing to a prior instance in which the EPA continued enforcing mercury regulations even after a Supreme Court ruling against them. "The absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law," Roberts wrote.
- Justice Samuel Alito framed the urgency starkly, writing: “A failure to stay this rule threatens to render our ability to provide meaningful judicial review—and by extension our institutional legitimacy—a nullity.”
- The stay, issued on February 9, 2016, was the first time the Supreme Court halted a federal agency's rule before lower courts completed their review—a significant departure from tradition and a milestone for the so-called "shadow docket."
- The CPP, a centerpiece of U.S. climate policy at the time, sought a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 2030, using 2005 as the baseline.
The latest disclosures renew scrutiny over Supreme Court confidentiality and have major implications for attorneys advising clients facing shifting regulatory and litigation risks. The identity of the leaker remains unknown, and questions linger about how such internal documents made their way to the public.
By the numbers:
- 5-4 — Vote margin for the Supreme Court's 2016 Clean Power Plan stay
- 30% — Target CO2 emissions drop from 2005 levels by 2030 under Clean Power Plan
- February 9, 2016 — Date the Supreme Court issued the CPP stay
Yes, but: The full consequences of both the leak and the original stay's impact on climate policy and future cases are unresolved.
What's next: Legal and policy communities are awaiting clarification on the leaker’s identity and potential further fallout.