The D.C. Circuit releases opinions on Tuesdays and Fridays. We read them all so you don’t have to. On Friday (July 6), the court issued five opinions:
Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA published a regulation in 2015 designed to reduce air pollutants like chlorine and hydrogen fluoride that are emitted from kilns run by brick manufacturers. Environmental groups challenged various provisions of the regulation, saying many of the standards were not strict enough. Industry groups challenged other provisions, saying some of the requirements were arbitrary. In an opinion by Judge Sentelle (joined by Judges Rogers and Millett), the court denied the industry challenges and upheld most of the environmental groups’ challenges. The court said, for instance, that EPA lacked evidence to conclude that acid gas pollutants from brick kilns do not cause cancer—a conclusion that affected the type of standard used to regulate those pollutants.
American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Supreme Court isn’t the only place Georgia and Alabama deal with water issues. In a rare two-author opinion, Judges Millett and Sentelle (joined by Judge Srinivasan) vacated a license renewal that FERC granted in 2013 for a power plant on the Coosa River, which flows from northwest Georgia into central Alabama. The environmental impact assessment on the renewal flagged several issues, including complete destruction of endangered mussels and “a large loss of indigenous fish.” But FERC concluded the project “would have no substantial impact” on the river’s ecosystem or endangered species. Wrong, said the court, relying in part on the National Environmental Protection Act’s requirement that the agency look at the cumulative impact of its actions.
Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association v. National Labor Relations Board. An association representing corrections officers deploys “business agents” to represent the association in disciplinary matters. Those business agents formed a union, and in 2010, the association fired five of the business agents. The NLRB found that the association failed to properly bargain with the union and ordered it to pay back wages. The association challenged those findings, and a divided panel sided with the association. Judge Ginsburg (joined by Judge Williams) said the NLRB lacked substantial evidence for its order. Judge Henderson dissented, saying the NLRB’s conclusion about back pay was reasonable.
Croley v. Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. John Croley won a $1.2 million judgment against the Republican National Committee after an RNC security guard beat him up while he was taking photos of an overflowing garbage dumpster at RNC headquarters. The RNC paid the judgment into a court registry, but it took 13 years for Croley to collect the money. Croley, acting pro se, sued the administrative agency for D.C. courts, arguing that court officials repeatedly stymied his efforts to collect. The agency argued the suit was barred by the rarely-used Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which limits the ability of federal courts to review decisions of state (or in this case D.C.) courts. Judge Pillard (joined by Chief Judge Garland and Judge Silberman) allowed Croley’s suit to proceed, saying that the pro se complaint, construed charitably, alleges viable federal claims against the agency.
Taylor v. Federal Aviation Administration. In the court’s second case of the day involving a pro se plaintiff, James Taylor, who flies model airplanes, challenged the FAA’s regulation of drones. In an opinion by Chief Judge Garland (joined by Judges Sentelle and Randolph), the court denied Taylor’s numerous arguments that the FAA exceeded its authority in enacting a 2016 rule. The rule codified an already existing statutory provision on model aircraft to “allow for routine civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems and to provide safety rules for those operations.” Garland glided through Taylor’s many arguments one by one, ultimately reasoning that because the FAA’s rule is
within the agency’s statutory authority and is neither arbitrary nor capricious, the petition for review is
Denied.
