Young v. EPA
About this case
Filing year
2021
Status
Motion for entry of partial final judgment entered and case stayed pending resolution of appeal.
Geography
Docket number
1:21-cv-02623
Court/admin entity
United States → United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.)United States → United States Federal Courts
Case category
Climate Change Protesters and Scientists (US) → Scientists (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Other Statutes and Regulations (US)
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → Federal Advisory Committee Act
At issue
Challenge to the Biden administration's reconstitution of the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
11/02/2022
Motion for entry of partial final judgment entered and case stayed pending resolution of appeal.
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.
Decision
09/30/2022
Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment granted.
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
Decision
10/28/2021
Amended complaint filed.
On October 28, 2021, an amended complaint was filed, adding the former chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee as a plaintiff.
Complaint
10/21/2021
Memorandum of law filed by plaintiff in support of motion for preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, for expedited partial summary judgment.
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.
Motion
10/07/2021
Complaint filed.
On October 7, 2021, a statistician and former member of EPA’s Science Advisory Board filed a lawsuit against EPA in the federal district court for the District of Columbia alleging that EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and federal regulations when EPA reconstituted the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in 2021. The complaint alleged that EPA Administrator Michael Regan “abruptly fired” all members of the Board and Committee in March 2021 and “rapidly proceeded to pack the new committees with academics receiving multi-million dollar research grants from EPA,” with none of the new members affiliated with regulated industries. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief requiring that the Board and Committee be reconstituted “with fairly balanced membership and adequate protections against inappropriate influence.”
Complaint
Summary
Challenge to the Biden administration's reconstitution of the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
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
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance