Humane Society of the United States v. McCarthy

The court held that its jurisdiction arose under the Clean Air Act, not the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the action therefore could not be maintained because the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision requires that prospective plaintiffs provide EPA with 180 days' notice, which the plaintiffs did not provide.

After the federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/environmental-integrity-project-v-epa/">lawsuit</a> that asked the court to compel EPA to respond to a petition asking it to regulate ammonia as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act, EPA filed a notice of decision in a related case, asking that it also be dismissed. In the related case, plaintiffs have asked the court to require EPA to respond to a 2009 petition asking it to regulate concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as a source of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs alleged that air pollution from CAFOs endangers public health and welfare, including by contributing to climate change due to their emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. In its notice of decision, EPA said that the court’s decision in the first case addressed the same legal issues raised in EPA’s motion to dismiss in this case. In particular, EPA said that, as in the other lawsuit, plaintiffs had failed to provide statutorily-required pre-suit notice.