Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. USEPA
CL&M's Environmental Practice Group recently had the honor to represent four former Administrators of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in connection with the filing of an amicus brief before the Supreme Court. The case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. USEPA, concerns regulation of some of the chemicals believed to be responsible for climate change. In 1999, several parties petitioned EPA to set regulatory standards for four air pollutants (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons) emitted by motor vehicles. EPA decided not to set standards for the four air pollutants. In explaining its decision, EPA did not apply the statutory standard in section 202(a)(1); that is, the agency did not find that the scientific evidence regarding the pollutants' effects fell short of the "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" standard. The agency ignored that standard and instead relied on various "policy" considerations not mentioned in section 202(a)(1). As an additional reason not to act, EPA concluded it had no authority to regulate air pollutants associated with climate change, regardless of the state of the scientific evidence. The agency therefore concluded that the four substances covered by the petition are not "air pollutants" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. Thirty parties, including sixteen states and other governmental bodies, filed petitions for review challenging EPA's denial of the rulemaking petition. The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA' decision. Judge Randolph wrote the lead opinion for the panel, with Judge Sentelle joining in his judgment. Judge Randolph concluded that EPA acted lawfully in declining to regulate air pollutants under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act based on " 'policy' considerations" nowhere mentioned there. EPA was not, he thought, required to base its decision on the factors actually enumerated in section 202(a)(1), but was instead justified in giving expression to "the sort of policy judgments Congress makes when it decides whether to enact legislation regulating a particular area." Judge Tatel dissented. He explained that "the Clean Air Act gives the Administrator no discretion to withhold regulation" under section 202(a)(1) for reasons unrelated to danger to public health or welfare. He also concluded that EPA has authority to regulate air pollutants associated with climate change. By a vote of 4-3, the D.C. Circuit denied en banc review. In June 2006, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. Petitioners assert that the ruling below is an extreme departure from the Supreme Court's precedents on statutory interpretation. They argue that to allow this decision to stand would be to sanction an enormous shift of power to administrative agencies, effectively letting them dismantle statutory regimes they do not like.
Client Kaneka Corporation was awarded a default judgment against a Chinese importer...
Ms. Mann was asked to comment on the lawsuit alleging that the Trump Foundation charity used funds for personal and political purposes.
Carter Ledyard is pleased to welcome the arrival of Ms. Dreizen to the firm as Counsel in the Corporate department.
Partner Steven Paul McSloy gave a presentation at the Consulate General of Ireland in NYC on “The American Indian as Irishman: The Lost Connection”
Carter Ledyard client Global SC Finance IV Limited completed an offering of $196 million of fixed rate asset backed notes.
Judith discusses the benefits and risks of arbitration of art disputes in the newly created process at the Netherlands Arbitration Institute.
Jack was honored with the Chairman's Award, in recognition of his "tireless efforts and unending dedication to the foundation."
Mr. McCarthy has joined the firm as a partner in the Litigation Department, bringing with him years of experience in international litigation and arbitration.
Our 2017 Year in Review highlights the cutting-edge work of our clients, both foreign and domestic, and some of the ways we helped them succeed.
Over breakfast at the midtown office, more than 30 members of the private equity community gathered to create a deal flow for all concerned.
Val Vasi discussed anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines in the art world and AML regulations in the financial services industry
Carter Ledyard client Lisa Schwarz, developer of the Comprehensive Resource Model trauma treatment model, prevailed on her motion for contempt against Dr. David Grand in proceedings in the Federal District Court for the…
Together with Her Justice, Carter Ledyard attorneys were successful in guiding pro bono clients apply for their U-Visa, obtain deferred and final approval of legal status, and receive employment authorization.