- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Michigan
- /
- American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce v. Nishida
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce v. Nishida
Geography
Year
2025
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2025
Status
Motion to stay proceedings denied and motion to intervene granted.
Geography
Docket number
1:25-cv-00067
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → W.D. Mich.
Case category
Constitutional Claims → Other Constitutional Claims
Principal law
United States → Article I (U.S. Constitution)United States → Clean Air Act (CAA)United States → Export ClauseUnited States → Inflation Reduction Act of 2022United States → Nondelegation DoctrineUnited States → Unintelligibility Canon
At issue
Challenge to the Inflation Reduction Act's waste emissions charge.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
03/27/2025
Federal Court Declined to Stay Lawsuit Challenging Inflation Reduction Act Methane Waste Charge Rule
Motion to stay proceedings denied and motion to intervene granted.
The federal district court for the Western District of Michigan allowed environmental groups to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit challenging the Inflation Reduction Act’s methane waste emissions charge for petroleum and natural gas systems. The court denied the federal defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings, finding that an indefinite pause was not warranted. The court directed the parties to be prepared to address at a June conference why the case was not rendered moot by the Congressional Review Act resolution signed by President Trump on March 14, 2025 that disapproved the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule implementing the waste charge.
Decision
01/17/2025
Complaint filed.
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce and Michigan Oil and Gas Association filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan challenging the constitutionality of provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that imposed the waste emissions charge, which the plaintiffs referred to as a “Methane Tax.” The plaintiffs contended that the provision did not provide an “intelligible principle” for applying a “regulatory compliance exemption” from the charge. The plaintiffs further asserted that the provision constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the waste emissions charge violated the Constitution’s Export Clause to the extent it applied to liquefied natural gas export facilities because it was “in effect” a tax on exports.
Complaint
Summary
Challenge to the Inflation Reduction Act's waste emissions charge.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience