The Importance of the Murray Energy Case and Administrative Procedure

by Emily Hammond

April 21, 2015

Last week, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on a highly unusual attempt to short-circuit EPA’s rulemaking process for greenhouse gas regulation of existing power plants.  Despite statutory and constitutional hurdles to premature litigation, the petitioners—the coal-fired industry and coal-producing states—argued that the importance of the proposed rule justifies court intervention.

The rule’s importance is precisely why it is critical that the agency complete the administrative process.

That industry groups will file lawsuits over EPA’s greenhouse gas initiatives is unremarkable.  After all, litigation is to be expected:  frequently, both the regulated community and public interest groups challenge major environmental rules.  Nor is it unusual that interested parties may attempt to hijack a regulatory policy before a rule is finalized.  Scholars have documented (for example, here, here, and here) the many contacts between agencies and regulated industries that occur at various stages of a rules’ development.  What is more, contacts—from any interested party—are perfectly legal provided the agency discloses anything it relies on in support of the rule.  Congressional pressure and Presidential direction may also be brought to bear on agencies during their decisionmaking processes.

But one institution stands apart: the courts.  That the third branch will not interfere with agencies’ unfinished business is one of the strongest principles of both administrative and constitutional law.  First, the whole point of proposing a rule and taking comments is to enhance the administrative law values of participation, deliberation, and transparency (for more on EPA’s efforts, see here).  In short, agencies stand to learn something from commenters.  They often change their minds following comment periods, issuing final rules that are different from those originally proposed or withdrawing a proposed rule altogether (as has happened with a prior proposed rule targeting GHGs).  It makes no sense to engage the machinery of the courts before agencies have had the opportunity to learn and deliberate in connection with a comment period.  If anything, these procedures are all the more important for important rules.

Nor does the Constitution endorse such inter-branch interference.  Numerous statutory, common law, and constitutional rules protect these concerns.  Hence, the Clean Air Act’s requirement that only final rules can be challenged; the Administrative Procedure Act’s similar provision; the ripeness doctrine that considers whether a rule is fit for review; and the standing doctrine’s requirement that injuries be actual and concrete.

Fortunately, the tenor of the questions at oral argument suggested that at least two members of the panel have serious concerns about interfering in a non-final rule.  The Petitioners’ challenge can wait.  Judicial review now would set a dangerous precedent, threatening one of the most democratic processes agencies undertake.  Let the agency finish its work; after that, the courts will have something to review.             

 

 

 

 

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Emily Hammond

 Emily Hammond is a Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School.

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015