Arizona v. EPA

In the case challenging the termination of the Solar for All program in federal district court for the Western District of Washington, the court denied the federal defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the federal district court for the District of Columbia where an <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/harris-county-v-epa_25df">earlier lawsuit</a> had been filed by Harris County, Texas. The court found that “first-to-file” factors weighed against transfer, noting the differences between the parties in each case and the fact that a <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/rhode-island-afl-cio-v-epa_b8da">third case</a> had been filed in the District of Rhode Island before Harris County v. EPA was filed. In addition, the court found that factors of convenience and fairness were either neutral or leaned against transfer.

State recipients of grants under the Solar for All program filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington seeking a declaration that EPA’s actions terminating the program were unlawful and injunctive relief prohibiting EPA from implementing the unlawful actions and ordering EPA to reinstate the program and provide necessary administrative report to grant recipients. They asserted violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and of separation of powers constraints and the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. They also asserted a non-statutory review ultra vires claim that EPA acted in excess of its authority.