Maine policy organizations and elected leaders had mixed reactions Thursday to a trio of U.S. Supreme Court rulings dealing with air pollution, abortion and a multi-billion settlement with opioid manufacturers.
One decision could affect the amount of air pollution drifting into Maine.
The nation's highest court temporarily blocked a Biden administration plan to force about two dozen states to reduce air pollution from power plant and industrial sources. The EPA's so-called "Good Neighbor plan" aimed to reduce the amount of smog-causing pollutants that drift across state lines, especially into the Northeast from southern or midwestern states.
But power plants and officials in those regulated states called the rules unworkable and too costly to meet. In a 5-4 ruling that divided the more conservative justices, the court took the unusual step of halting the EPA's enforcement of the tougher standards even before appellate courts make final decisions in the cases. That means the case will likely return to the Supreme Court on appeal.
Lance Boucher, assistant vice president for state public policy at the American Lung Association in Augusta, called the ruling deeply disappointing because smog and ground-level ozone contribute to asthma and other lung conditions in Maine.
Boucher said the ruling could allow fossil fuel-fired power plants to suspend work on new pollution controls while others may turn off more advanced but costly pollution controls as the case plays out in the lower courts.
"Unfortunately, we've often said that Maine is at the tailpipe of the nation and we have so much pollution that comes from out of state," Boucher said. "Unfortunately, air pollution doesn't respect state lines. A lot of our pollution comes from these power plants and industrial sources in the Midwest. And this regulation will impact us."
Smog and ground-level ozone pollution are often most problematic in Maine during summer. For instance, pollution reached potentially unhealthy levels earlier this month in coastal counties for sensitive groups, such as children, the elderly and people with asthma.
In another closely watched decision, the justices voted 6-3 to allow doctors at federally funded hospitals in Idaho to continue providing emergency abortions to protect the health of the mother. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, returning the abortion issue to the states, Idaho all but banned the procedure except to protect the life of the mother.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, and abortion rights groups in the state criticized the court's narrow ruling, however, because it only applies to Idaho. The justices did not rule on the applicability of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act — which requires hospitals to stabilize and transfer patients in emergency situations — in other states that have banned or severely restricted access to abortion.
“The Supreme Court has provided temporary relief to women in Idaho by allowing abortions in emergency situations – a right that, frankly, should never have been in question," Mills said in a statement. "But the Court has failed in its obligation to state unequivocally that the right to an abortion in an emergency is guaranteed under Federal law in every single state across America. I want to be clear: the right to reproductive health care should not depend upon where a person lives. The rights of women, regardless of their zip code, are not dispensable.”
Maine has expanded access to abortion under Mills and the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
"The overturning of Roe two years ago this month, by this same Supreme Court, unleashed a national health care crisis that jeopardizes the lives of pregnant women, even as they seek care for serious and life-threatening medical issues in emergency rooms," Nicole Clegg of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England said in a statement. "Overturning Roe was never about sending the issue of abortion back to the states. It was about controlling our lives, bodies, and futures and about making abortion inaccessible at every turn.”
In a third case, the court rejected a bankruptcy and legal settlement with the Sackler family who formerly controlled Purdue Pharma, which manufactured OxyContin and other opioids. The Sacklers had agreed to pay up to $6 billion to states, local governments and victims to settle lawsuits blaming Purdue Pharma for helping cause the opioid addiction crisis that continues today.
The ruling throws that settlement into question. Maine was part of that settlement and was expected to receive tens of millions of dollars as a result.
Attorney General Aaron Frey said the ruling simply means the discussion will continue.
"While today’s Supreme Court decision means we have more work to do, my office will continue to litigate to obtain resources from the Sackler’s to save lives and fight the opioid epidemic," Frey said in a statement. "Make no mistake about our resolve: confronting the devastation of the opioid epidemic requires that we work to hold accountable those bad actors who are responsible for it, which includes the Sackler family."
