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.
The M&A Advisor's Emerging Leaders Awards recognize individuals under the age of 40 who have achieved significant success in the M&A industry.
Designed to showcase those exhibiting excellence in the practice of law, Super Lawyers® named forty Carter Ledyard attorneys to this year's list.
The Committee addresses issues related to estate planning, trust and law practice and the operation of Surrogate's Courts.
In an August 24, 2018 decision, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses determined that any dispute over ownership of “The Mechanism of Meaning,” the iconic artwork by Shusaku Arakawa, and the intellectual property in that…
Fifteen attorneys across ten practice areas were named by Best Lawyers in their annual The Best Lawyers in America® rankings.
Mr. McSloy taught at the College's semi-annual Leadership & Governance Certificate Program, designed for current and aspiring tribal leaders.
Jeff Boxer spoke with the New York Law Journal about the quality of services provided by a mid-sized law firm like Carter Ledyard.
Ms. Wallace has been a partner at CLM since 2017 and practices Art Law, Environmental Law and Litigation.
Carter Ledyard filed an action in Manhattan's Federal District Court against Pinduoduo, Inc., a multi-billion dollar Chinese-language social e-commerce app.
Ms. Lockhart, Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment practice group, served as a panelist for DeWitt Stern/Risk Strategies' EPL program.
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.
Carter Ledyard client Global SC Finance IV Limited completed an offering of $196 million of fixed rate asset backed notes.
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.