State of North Dakota v. Regina McCarthy
868 F.3d 1062
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- EPA revised the sulfur dioxide NAAQS in 2010, triggering a designations timeline under the Clean Air Act.
- EPA missed the statutory deadlines; Sierra Club sued to compel action; States intervened opposing the settlement.
- The district court approved a Consent Decree (scheduled phased designations through December 31, 2020) to resolve the claims.
- The Decree states it is a standstill/non-suit for the EPA to follow the schedule, not a modification of statutory obligations or binding States.
- States and North Carolina maintain independent avenues to pursue their claims in other fora; the Decree does not bind them.
- On appeal, the majority affirm the district court; the dissent would vacate and remand due to claimed statutory conflicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the consent decree conflict with the Act's deadlines? | Sierra Club/NRDC argue the decree properly enforces deadlines; states objection is noted but not outcome-determinative. | EPA argues the decree provides a fair, reasonable schedule to complete designations consistent with the Act. | Yes, but the court affirms the decree as fair and reasonable. |
| Does the decree improperly impose duties on the States without their consent? | States contend the decree imposes indirect obligations via the Data Requirements Rule. | Decree imposes no explicit state obligations and preserves state rights to pursue other actions. | No; the decree does not bind the States or impose duties without their consent. |
| Does the decree comply with Local No. 93 and similar authority limiting court-imposed settlements? | States argue the decree cannot override statutory commands; the decree bypasses proper legislative action. | Consent decree approved with Intervenors heard; it does not extinguish nonconsenting claims. | Yes; the decree complies with applicable law and is a proper consent decree under Local No. 93. |
| Is the decree consistent with the Act’s three-year data-collection framework including potential unclassifiable and redesignation provisions? | Dissent argues the decree expands data-gathering beyond Congress’s intent and would rewrite the statute. | Majority finds the decree within equitable relief power and consistent with the redesignation framework. | Yes; the decree is consistent with the statutory framework as interpreted by the majority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 F.3d 501 (1986) (intervenors cannot veto settlement; consent decree may proceed with others' claims intact)
- Oregon v. United States, 913 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1990) (district courts have broad latitude to fashion equitable relief; decree must conform to law)
- Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, 715 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court may approve consent decrees in environmental cases if not conflicting with statute)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 762 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014) (enforcement of updated guidelines in final action; not binding on unrelated Rule data collection)
- Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (court addressed delay in designations despite a consent decree; tensions with deadlines)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (consent decree in separate case; data gathering prior to designations discussed but not controlling here)