- Legal News Updates
- Law Center
- Legal Business
- Court News Center
- Law Firm News
- Legal Interviews
- Headline News
- Political and Legal
- Practice Focuses
- Legal Spotlight
- Events & Seminars
- Legal Marketing
- Court Watch
- Immigration Law
- Media Center
- Justice Stories
- GOP to take new congressional map to court
- Inmate in landmark Supreme Court case denied parole
- Catalan politicians in Spanish court in secession probe
- Supreme Court blocks some redrawn North Carolina districts
- Court allows Pennsylvania to redraw GOP-favored district map
- Court rules that Kushner firm must disclose partners' names
- Court rules Puigdemont must return to Spain for re-election
- Analysis: Outside groups may factor in Arkansas court race
- Pennsylvania GOP take gerrymandering case to US high court
- Top Pakistani court orders arrest of escaped police officer
The EPA is supposed to study the effects of carbon monoxide, a principal product of gas engines, every five years. But is has failed to conduct such a study since 1994.
The ruling is the latest in a string of government defeats on environmental issues. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White gave the EPA until 2011 to review air quality criteria and national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide and set interim deadlines to ensure the EPA does its job.
Four environmental groups led by Communities for a Better Environment sued the EPA under the Clean Air Act for neglecting its statutory duty to review and, if appropriate, revise air quality standards for carbon monoxide, which it has not done since 1994 though it is required to do so every five years.
Judge White rejected the EPA's argument that so long as it finishes the review within five years of being sued, it need only set a "reasonable" schedule at this time. Judge White pointed out that the statutory timeframe began in 1990 and re-occurs every five years. White also concluded that the court may exercise its authority "to set enforceable deadlines both of an ultimate and an intermediate nature" when an agency fails to meet a statutory deadline.
According to the ruling, the EPA's failure to conduct the review is especially remarkable considering one of Congress' express purposes in enacting the Clean Air Act was to "accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution."
On the other hand, White conceded that public interest would not be served by moving up the deadline so much that a full review would be impossible, arguing that "courts should not impose an infeasible schedule upon an agency in order to punish the agency for its delinquency."
White ruled that the EPA's argument that the court can only issue an order requiring the agency to comply with the ultimate deadline for review incorrectly attempts to limit the court's authority.
Legal News Media
Legal News Organization press is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet
community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.