Young v. EPA

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that two scientists lacked standing for their claims that EPA violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Administrative Procedure Act when the agency did not appoint them to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) after dismissing CASAC members in 2021 and conducting a new nomination and evaluation process. The D.C. Circuit found that the scientists did not demonstrate an Article III injury, including with allegations that EPA “skipped past them” to select candidates who favored more stringent regulation of air quality.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia entered partial final judgment in a lawsuit challenging EPA’s reconstitution of advisory committees during the Biden administration. The court directed entry of final judgment in favor of the defendants on the claims related to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), having previously concluded that the reconstitution of the CASAC did not violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Administrative Procedure Act. The court stayed proceedings with respect to the remaining claims, which concerned the Science Advisory Board, pending the resolution of the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia found that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Administrative Procedure Act when it reconstituted the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in 2021. The plaintiffs alleged, “essentially, that the EPA has unlawfully purged [the CASAC and the Science Advisory Board] to allow the Biden administration to pursue policies on climate change the committees’ previous membership had thwarted.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act did not require an industry representative on the CASAC, given its technical and scientific mandate. The court also found that there were safeguards in place that were sufficient to avoid inappropriate influence. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the reconstitution of the CASAC was arbitrary and capricious

On October 28, 2021, an amended complaint was filed, adding the former chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee as a plaintiff.

In a motion for preliminary injunction filed on October 21, the plaintiff contended that EPA “has moved to sideline anyone who might dissent from the President’s climate-change agenda,” and that immediate relief was necessary to pause the Committee’s work before it was asked to “rubberstamp” EPA staff’s policy assessment regarding stricter standards for particulate matter.