Commonwealth of Mass. v. Environ. Protect. Agency, 03-1361.

• Decision Date: 02 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-1368.,No. 03-1362.,No. 03-1367.,No. 03-1364.,No. 03-1366.,No. 03-1363.,No. 03-1365.,No. 03-1361.,03-1361.,03-1362.,03-1363.,03-1364.,03-1365.,03-1366.,03-1367.,03-1368.
• Citation: 433 F.3d 66
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, et al., Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 66

433 F.3d 66

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent.

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, et al., Intervenors.

No. 03-1361.

No. 03-1362.

No. 03-1363.

No. 03-1364.

No. 03-1365.

No. 03-1366.

No. 03-1367.

No. 03-1368.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

December 2, 2005.

On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

William Lyon Pardee, Assistant Attorney General, James R. Milkey, Attorney General's Office of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, Kimberly P. Massicotte, Matthew I. Levine, Attorney General's Office of State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, Gary S. Feinerman, Gerald T. Karr, Attorney General's Office for the State of Illinois, Chicago, IL, Thomas Edward Davis, Attorney General's Office of State of Illinois, Springfield, IL, Gerald D. Reid, Attorney General's Office of State of Maine, Augusta, ME, Stefanie A. Brand, Attorney General's Office of State of New Jersey, Division of Law, Trenton, NJ, Stuart Michael Bluestone, Attorney General's Office of State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, J. Jared Snyder, Attorney General's Office of State of New York, New York State Department of Law, Albany, NY, Peter Hans Lehner, Attorney General's Office of State of New York, New York, NY, Philip Schradle, Attorney General's Office of State of Oregon, Office of General Counsel, Salem, OR, Tricia K. Jedele, Attorney General's Office of State of Rhode Island, Providence, RI, William H. Sorrell, Erick Titrud, Kevin O. Leske, Attorney General's Office of State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT, David K. Mears, Olympia, WA, Fiti A. Sunia, Attorney General's Office of American Samoa, Pago Pago American Samoa, Donna M. Murasky, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward Eugene Schwab, Dep. Atty. Gen., Office of Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Richard M. Frank, Nicholas Stern, Attorney General's Office of State of California, Sacramento, CA, Mary Elizabeth Hackenbracht, Marc Nathaniel Melnick, Attorney General's Office of State of California, Oakland, CA, for Petitioners.

Mary Elizabeth Hackenbracht, Marc Nathaniel Melnick, Nicholas Stern, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Jon M. Lipshultz, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Ann R. Klee, General Counsel, Nancy A. Ketcham-Colwill, John Thomas Hannon, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

William Albert Anderson, II, Winston & Strawn LLP, Norman William Fichthorn, Allison D. Wood, Hunton & Williams LLP, Robin S. Conrad, National Chamber Litigation Center, Russell Scott Frye, John Leonard Wittenborn, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, Richard Stuart Wasserstrom, American Forest & Paper Association, Janice S. Amundson, Quentin Riegel, Ralph J. Colleli, Jr., Julie Carol Becker, William Lincoln Fang, Washington, DC, Jed Robert Mandel, Timothy A. French, Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, Chicago, IL, Neil David Gordon, Attorney General's Office of State of Michigan, Lansing, MI, Jane E. Atwood, Attorney General's Office of State of Texas, Austin, TX, Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General's Office of State of Idaho, Natural Resources Division, Boise, ID, Fred G. Nelson, Attorney General's Office of State of Utah, Salt Lake

City, UT, Roxanne Giedd, Attorney General's Office of State of South Dakota, Pierre, SD, Steven E. Mulder, Assist Atty. Gen., Attorney General's Office of State of Alaska Department of Law, Anchorage, AK, David W. Davies, III, Attorney General's Office of State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Jon Cumberland Bruning, Attorney General's Office of State of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, Dale T. Vitale, Attorney General's Office of State of Ohio, Columbus, OH, Leslie A. Hulse, American Chemistry Council, Arlington, VA, for Intervenors.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE, HEBDERSON,^* RANDOLPH, ROGERS,^** TATEL,^*** GARLAND,^* BROWN, and GRIFFITH,^** Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The petition of petitioners Commonwealth of Massachusetts, States of Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, and the District of Columbia for rehearing en banc and the opposition thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

* Circuit Judges Henderson and Garland did not participate in this matter.

** Circuit Judges Rogers, Tatel, and Griffith would grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

*** A separate statement by Circuit Judge Tatel, in which Circuit Judge Rogers joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, is attached.

TATEL, Circuit Judge, with whom ROGERS, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc.

In this case, several states and environmental groups petitioned for review of EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gases. The case presents two questions: 1) whether EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and 2) whether, if it has such authority, its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases was arbitrary and capricious. Although the panel's decision denying the petitions has no precedential effect—the panel never considered the first question and Judge Randolph's views on the second are his alone—the case involves the threat of global warming and its attendant consequences for human health and the environment, and therefore presents an issue of "exceptional importance." Fed. R.App. P. 35; see also Douglas H. Ginsburg & Donald Falk, The Court En Banc: 1981-1990, 59 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 1008, 1025 (1991) ("A case may be of exceptional importance to the public if it concerns . . . a unique issue of great moment to the community. . . .")....