ILNews

Indiana among states wanting SCOTUS to clear the air on pollution standard

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A coalition of 14 states, including Indiana, are headed to the Supreme Court of the United States Dec. 10 to argue that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has overstepped its authority, again, in trying to regulate air pollution in upwind states.

At issue is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, known as CSAPR or the Transport Rule. This regulation requires upwind states to reduce their power plant emissions that contribute to the ozone and fine particle matter in downwind states.

The 14 states assert the EPA overreached its statutory authority by imposing a federal implementation plan before allowing the states to submit their own implementation plans. Under the terms set by the Clean Air Act, Washington, D.C., and the individual states engage in a regime of cooperative federalism where the federal administration sets the standards then the states offer their proposals for meeting those standards.

The EPA contends it had previously found that the states subject to the Transport Rule had either submitted an inadequate SIP or failed to tender a plan altogether.

“Fundamentally, this case is about federalism and agency consideration of undefined statutory terms,” said Kevin Lyskowski, partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Faegre Baker Daniels. “It’s an interesting and significant case. There’ll be a lot of people looking to see how the Supreme Court rules.”

Neither side disputes that the Clean Air Act employs a regime of cooperative federalism and that states get the first crack to meet the federal standards, Lyskowski said. The disagreement centers about what “first crack” means.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consolidated two cases concerning the Transport Rule, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 12-1182, and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, 12-1183, and is allowing 90 minutes for oral arguments.

Twenty-eight states are subject to the Transport Rule. They have split into two groups with one group supporting the standard and the other group opposing. Fourteen states, led by Texas and including Indiana, are fighting the rule.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office as the state of Indiana’s lawyer signed on the respondent brief filed by Texas.

“Challenges filed by states are one way federal regulatory actions are tested to determine whether they are valid,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the Indiana Attorney General. “Such challenges are a normal and healthy part of the process and they respectfully bring to the nation’s highest court the question of federal overreach so the Court can decide.”

The Transport Rule was formulated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the EPA exceeded its statutory authority with the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule.

The court allowed the agency to develop a replacement rule but kept the CAIR in place until a new standard took its place.

Finalized in July 2011, the Transport Rule was immediately challenged. A split U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the new rule in August. 2012, finding, again, the EPA had overstepped.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the EPA did not allow the states to develop their own plans for emission reductions. It also held that the Transport Rule could require upwind states to cut their pollution by more than their own contributions to downwind states’ nonattainment.

“I think it’s significant when any court strikes down a federal regulation,” Lyskowski said. “This is a regulation that had broad impact.”

In March 2013, the EPA petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The agency questioned whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the challenges to CSAPR. It also raised the issues of whether states are excused from reducing emissions until the EPA adopts a new rule and whether the Clean Air Act requires the agency to consider only each upwind state’s proportionate responsibility for each downwind air quality problem.



 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT