Can the federal government make a city pass a leash law? [Updated]

The obvious answer must be no, right? Setting aside the absurdity of a town’s leash law being a federal issue, the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering state and local governments. In New York v. United States and Printz … Continue reading

Oral argument in PLF’s challenge to EPA’s mobile source greenhouse gas rules held on January 9, 2015

On Friday, January 9, 2015, the D.C. Circuit heard our challenges to the greenhouse gas emissions standards for new trucks and cars.  The challenges were based on EPA’s failure to submit to the Science Advisory Board for peer review the Truck Rule and the separate Car Rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions.  We argued that submittal to the Board is a nondiscretionary statutory mandate applicable to all EPA rules, and that EPA’s failure to comply with the mandate requires the Truck Rule and Car Rule to be remanded and vacated, so that the Agency can reopen the administrative record to seek review from the Board.

The three-judge panel of Tatel, Ginsburg, and Edwards did not concentrate on the substantive issue of whether EPA failed to comply with the statutory requirement.  Rather, they spent the bulk of the hearing asking questions regarding whether the Petitioners had standing to bring the actions.  Standing is a Constitutional requirement, which forbids federal courts from hearing cases unless there is a bona fide controversy between parties to a lawsuit.  The purpose of the standing requirement is to ensure that the courts do not engage in resolving philosophical or abstract questions.

For the purposes of our cases, the standing requirement has three components: (1) the petitioners must be injured-in-fact by the Truck Rule or Car Rule, as the case may be; (2) the injuries must be caused by the rules; and (3) the Court is able to grant relief that will remove or reduce the injuries.  It is difficult to predict how any particular court will decide any pending issue, but the D.C. Circuit panel seemed to side with us on the injury-in-fact and causation issues, concentrating most of their questions on the redressability issue.  It comes down to this: whether vacating and remanding the EPA Truck Rule and Car Rule will help to ameliorate the injuries in light of similar California rules and the federal fuel economy standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Citing Supreme Court precedent, we argued that the Petitioners’ injuries are redressable because a favorable decision would remove at least one regulatory cause of the injuries.  There is no requirement that all causes of the injury be removed.

If the panel rules in our favor on the standing question, it will be required to address the substantive issue of whether EPA’s violation of the submittal requirement merits remand and vacatur of the two rules.  We expect a decision before the end of the year.

 

PLF’s Jonathan Wood on Stossel tonight, talking prairie dog win

Fox Business Network’s John Stossel devotes his program tonight (at 9pm Eastern) to the “Control Freaks” in government. I join Stossel to discuss PLF’s recent victory in the prairie dog case, on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of … Continue reading

EPA & enviros decide that suit against poultry farmer is for the birds

As we reported last month, the EPA has abandoned its case against a West Virginia poultry farmer for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. Last week, environmental groups followed suit, ending the case. The case began when the poultry … Continue reading

EPA abandons poultry farm appeal

The EPA has withdrawn its appeal of a West Virginia federal district court’s decision holding that the Clean Water Act’s regulatory regime for industrial stormwater does not apply to runoff from a poultry farm, where the “industrial” aspects of that … Continue reading

President’s weekly report — July 18, 2014

Equality Under the Law Project — Implicit Bias Victory The Iowa Supreme Court today issued this unanimous opinion in Pippen v. State of Iowa, tossing out an “implicit bias” discrimination lawsuit against the State of Iowa. Under the theory of … Continue reading

More EPA hokum

Hokum: (1) a device used (as by showmen) to evoke a desired audience response; (2) untrue words or ideas; (3) pretentious nonsense. We demonstrated in an earlier post how disingenuous the EPA Administrator was in claiming the EPA’s expansive new … Continue reading

EPA should “cool it” with its new cooling water intake rule

This week, EPA promulgated a new rule governing the construction and operation of cooling water intake structures that are used in connection with a number of industrial activities.  Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to publish standards … Continue reading

PLF voices support for solutions to water crisis

Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys represent some of the farmers in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell who are challenging the Delta smelt biological opinion as an abuse of federal power based on questionable science and shoddy regulatory procedures. … Continue reading