California v. EPA

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court should have granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) request for modification of an injunction requiring EPA to issue a federal plan for implementation of emission guidelines for municipal landfills by November 2019. The emission guidelines—adopted in August 2016—were intended to reduce emissions of landfill gas and its components, including methane, from existing landfills. The Ninth Circuit held that because EPA, after the district court injunction, issued final rules that extended EPA’s deadline for issuing the federal plan, the law that formed the basis of the district court’s injunction had changed, and the district court abused its discretion by refusing to modify the injunction “even after its legal basis has evaporated.” The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by the plaintiff states’ argument that “precedent requires a broad, fact-intensive inquiry into whether altering an injunction is equitable, even if the legal duty underlying the injunction has disappeared.” The Ninth Circuit also found that modification of the injunction due to EPA’s rulemaking action did not threaten separation of powers. The court wrote that ultimately it saw “a greater threat to the separation of powers by allowing courts to pick and choose what law governs the executive branch’s ongoing duties.”

On December 17, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern District of California declined to stay its November 2019 order that denied EPA’s motion for relief from the court’s May 2019 order setting a schedule for EPA to implement landfill emission guidelines promulgated in 2016. EPA immediately applied to the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. EPA sought relief from the May 2019 order after it amended the regulations in August 2019 to change the deadlines for states to submit their implementation plans and to alter the timeframe for issuance of a federal plan. The court found that EPA had amended the regulations only to reset its non-discretionary deadline, not to rectify any violation identified by the court, and that enforcement of its original order was still equitable. In its December order denying a stay pending appeal, the court found that EPA’s appeal raised “serious legal questions” but that the balance of hardships did not tip sharply in EPA’s favor.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied EPA’s motion for relief from the court’s order and judgment setting a schedule for EPA to implement landfill emission guidelines adopted in August 2016. EPA sought relief from the court’s deadlines after the agency amended its regulations to extend the deadlines for states and EPA to take action. The court rejected EPA’s request, finding that that EPA had amended its regulations only to reset its non-discretionary deadline, not to rectify any violation identified by the court, and that enforcement of the original judgment was still equitable.