Murray Energy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
415 U.S. App. D.C. 399
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- In June 2014 EPA published a proposed rule to limit CO2 emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants under Clean Air Act §111(d) and sought public comment; EPA intended to finalize the rule soon.
- Petitioners (Murray Energy and 11 States) sued before EPA issued a final rule, arguing §111(d) does not authorize regulation of existing power-plant CO2 emissions and seeking to enjoin issuance of a final rule.
- Petitioners also challenged a 2011 settlement agreement that set a timeline for EPA to decide whether to regulate existing sources.
- The court considered whether it had authority to review: (a) a proposed rule, (b) EPA’s public statements about its legal authority, and (c) the settlement agreement.
- The D.C. Circuit found the proposed rule and EPA’s preparatory statements were non-final agency action not subject to judicial review; the States lacked standing and timely filing to challenge the settlement agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may review EPA’s proposed rule now | Petitioners: court can enjoin EPA now to avoid future injury and costs | EPA: only final agency action is reviewable under CAA and APA | Denied — proposed rule is non-final and not reviewable now |
| Whether All Writs Act authorizes extraordinary relief now | Petitioners: All Writs Act allows court to issue writ to protect its potential jurisdiction | EPA: All Writs Act cannot be used to circumvent finality requirements | Denied — All Writs Act doesn’t justify bypassing finality (majority) |
| Whether EPA’s public statements about legal authority are reviewable | Petitioners: EPA’s repeated legal positions are final agency action | EPA: statements are part of a non-final rulemaking and impose no legal consequences | Denied — statements are not consummation nor impose legal obligations |
| Whether petitioners can challenge the 2011 settlement agreement | States: settlement unlawfully committed EPA to regulate | EPA/others: settlement only set a timeline and does not injure non-parties; suit untimely | Denied — no standing for non-parties and petition untimely under 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (finality requires consummation of decisionmaking and legal consequences)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (rulemaking review principles; final agency action reviewable)
- In re Tennant, 359 F.3d 523 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (All Writs Act limited to aiding the court’s jurisdiction)
- Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. U.S. Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34 (All Writs Act doesn’t authorize ad hoc writs to avoid statutory procedures)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (timeline-only settlements do not injure non-parties)
- Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (statute must clearly restrict equitable powers to bar writ authority)
- FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (All Writs Act grants equitable power absent explicit congressional restriction)