|
Legal Attacks on State Authority |
Court ActionThis page recounts the history of the legal battles involving clean cars in California and many other states. Chamber-NADA LawsuitNational business interests have launched a desperate attempt to derail the historic peace plan between automakers and the states brokered by President Obama in May 2009. While opponents of clean car standards have failed in every legal attack to date, they apparently haven't learned their lesson. An old foe and a new foe have launched another attack. On September 10, 2009, the National Automobile Dealers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review EPA's June 30, 2009 decision to grant California's waiver to implement its clean cars law. Read the Chamber-NADA petition. (Vehicle manufacturers are precluded from pursuing legal action under the agreement hammered out in May with the White House.) This section documents milestones in this legal proceeding. October 9, 2009 – In separate motions, California and 18 states filed motions to intervene in support of U.S. EPA in a lawsuit filed against EPA by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Automobile Dealers Association. The 18 states that joined in one motion are: New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. California separately moved to intervene. October 8, 2009 – Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and Environment California filed a motion to intervene in support of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a lawsuit filed against EPA by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Automobile Dealers Association.
California Waiver LawsuitsIn January 2008 California and 18 states — plus five environmental organizations — asked the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals to reverse the December 19, 2007 U.S. EPA decision denying California a waiver to implement its Clean Cars law. The court on July 25 dismissed the petition. In May 2008 California plus 38 environmental organizations and 17 states filed petitions in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the EPA's December 2007 waiver denial. Track the court action and download briefs and other court documents. Legal Attacks on State AuthorityAutomakers have sued to block states from implementing the Clean Cars law, challenging state authority under the Clean Air Act. Current State CasesNew MexicoIn April 2008, a group of auto dealers filed suit in U.S. District Court against the State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque, seeking to block implementation of the Clean Cars law. The state is expected to answer the complaint in May or June 2008. Meanwhile, four state legislators and some businesses filed suit in state court. The case is currently mired in procedural maneuvers involving which court – District Court or Court of Appeals – should be assigned the case. Rhode IslandNovember 25, 2008 – The U.S. Federal District Court for Rhode Island dismisses automakers' lawsuit seeking to block the Clean Cars Law, calling the carmakers' attempts to bring successive lawsuits "costly and vexatious" and a "waste of judicial resources." Throughout spring 2008, parties in the Rhode Island case have submitted briefs on the issue of “res judicata,” which means the case has already been tried and therefore should not be tried again. Lawyers for the state and environmental advocates argue that, given the U.S. District Court decisions against the automakers in California and Vermont, there is no need or reason for this case to go forward in Rhode Island. A ruling is expected in summer 2008. On December 21, 2007, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that an automaker challenge to that state’s vehicle global warming pollution law can go forward. Read the judge’s order.
Resolved State CasesCaliforniaOn December 7, 2004, the major automakers filed lawsuits in state and federal court in Fresno to block California from implementing its landmark vehicle global warming pollution regulation. On December 11, 2007, U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii rejected the claims of the automakers and dismissed the lawsuit. On June 24, 2008 Judge Ishii denied another automaker request for injunction. Read the Judge's order. On October 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn Judge Ishii's decision. In the original lawsuit, thirteen Central Valley car dealers joined the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and others, as plaintiffs. The trial, originally scheduled for January 2007, had been delayed pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. Two groups of environmental organizations were intervenors in support of the defendant: the California Air Resources Board. Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense joined as one intervenor. Bluewater Network, Global Exchange and Rainforest Action Network joined as another intervenor. Intervening on behalf of the plaintiffs was the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and other foreign carmakers. To learn more about the California case and to download court documents visit the California Clean Cars Campaign. MaineIn Maine, the Kennebec County Superior court has denied a request by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to stay Maine's new clean car standards. The court also refused to send the matter back to the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) for reconsideration. VermontIn November 2005, automakers sued in federal district court to block Vermont from implementing its Clean Cars law. The trial opened on April 10, 2007 in Burlington, Judge William Sessions presiding. On September 12, 2007, Judge Sessions ruled against the automakers and for the states of Vermont and New York and environmental groups. The decision opens the way toward implementation of California’s vehicle global warming pollution standards in Vermont. Read the court decision. Background Public interest groups including Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Vermont Public Interest Research Group intervened in the Vermont case. Also intervening was the Burlington Free Press. The newspaper challenged an auto industry motion to seal certain testimony and bar access to the courtroom during portions of the trial that the industry claims involves trade secrets. Read news coverage of the trial. Here are some of the relevant court documents:
Further Insight on Legal Arguments
|