813 F. Supp. 2d 149
D.D.C.2011Background
- Sierra Club filed July 14, 2011 to challenge EPA's Delay Notice delaying Boiler Rule and CISWI Rule onset under the APA.
- EPA issued the Boiler Rule and CISWI Rule on February 21, 2011 and published them in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011, with an effective date of May 20, 2011.
- EPA stayed the effective dates via the Delay Notice two days before the rules were to take effect, asserting stay under the APA rather than the Clean Air Act.
- Sierra Club previously pursued seven related actions under the Clean Air Act for EPA's failure to promulgate specific hazardous air pollutant standards as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(6).
- The District Court ordered EPA to promulgate the required emission standards by February 21, 2011, and later denied extending that deadline; the current dispute centers on jurisdiction to review the Delay Notice.
- EPA contends the District Court should defer to the D.C. Circuit's ancillary or exclusive jurisdiction over related petitions for review, while Sierra Club maintains district-court federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Delay Notice is reviewable in district court under the federal-question statute. | Sierra Club argues APA action is reviewable in district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. | EPA argues ancillary jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals or divestment under the Clean Air Act. | Yes; district court has jurisdiction; Delay Notice reviewed under federal question statute. |
| Whether the Clean Air Act divests district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Delay Notice. | N/A | CAA exclusive-review provision divests district court if action is final under CAA. | No; CAA does not divest district court when stay was issued under the APA. |
| Whether ancillary jurisdiction applies to review of the Delay Notice. | N/A | Request to defer to the D.C. Circuit's ancillary jurisdiction. | No; Congress did not intend ancillary jurisdiction here; review lies in district court. |
| Whether TRAC or other principles constrain district-court review. | N/A | TRAC might apply to protect circuit jurisdiction. | TRAC does not compel transfer; not applicable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (judicial review of agency action follows statutory jurisdiction)
- Oryszak v. Sullivan, 576 F.3d 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (APA is not itself a jurisdiction-conferring statute)
- Micei Int'l v. Department of Commerce, 613 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (default rule favors district-court review of agency action)
- In re Natural Resources Defense Council, 645 F.3d 404 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (exclusive appellate review when statute vests jurisdiction in court of appeals)
- Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (exclusive appellate review for substantive challenges under CAA)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (unusual bifurcated jurisdiction under CAA)
- Sierra Club v. Browner, 130 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2001) (court deferred to agency's substantive conclusions within limits)