- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA
California v. EPA ↗
18-1192United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.)3 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
07/19/2018
Emergency motion for summary vacatur, or in the alternative, for stay pending judicial review filed by petitioners.
Motion
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA ↗
18-1190United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.)9 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
08/22/2018
Motion to dismiss granted.
The D.C. Circuit dismissed proceedings challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) now-withdrawn “No Action Assurance” memorandum in which EPA provided assurance that it would not enforce its greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for trucks against small manufacturers of “glider” vehicles and kits. The D.C. Circuit said the challenges were moot. The D.C. Circuit said that although “voluntary cessation of challenged activity does not moot a case,” EPA’s voluntary conduct mooted the case both because EPA said it would not provide any other no action assurance and also because the D.C. Circuit would not be able to provide any meaningful relief concerning penalties that could be imposed in potential enforcement proceedings concerning glider vehicle production while the No Action Assurance memorandum was in effect. The states and environmental groups challenging the memorandum had urged the D.C. Circuit not to dismiss on mootness grounds. The environmental groups characterized the memorandum’s withdrawal as “a shortcut by which EPA has tried to avoid judicial scrutiny of a fatally flawed agency action.” They argued that EPA had not acknowledged the illegality of the memorandum or committed to enforcing the current standards. The state petitioners argued that the challenges would not be moot at least until the 60-day period for challenging the withdrawal had passed.
Decision
08/09/2018
Reply filed in support of respondents' motion to dismiss.
Reply
08/03/2018
State petitioners filed opposition to motion to dismiss and reply in support of summary disposition.
Reply
08/03/2018
Organizational petitioners filed reply in support of motion for summary disposition and response in opposition to motion to dismiss.
Reply