730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013), 12-15131, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey

Docket Nº:12-15131, 12-15135
Citation:730 F.3d 1070
Opinion Judge:GOULD, Circuit Judge
Party Name:ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION; REDWOOD COUNTY MINNESOTA CORN AND SOYBEAN GROWERS; PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC.; REX NEDEREND; FRESNO COUNTY FARM BUREAU; NISEI FARMERS LEAGUE; CALIFORNIA DAIRY CAMPAIGN; GROWTH ENERGY; RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, FKA National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; A
Attorney:M. Elaine Meckenstock (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Mark W. Poole, Gavin G. McCabe, David A. Zonana, Deputy Attorneys General, San F...
Judge Panel:Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Ronald M. Gould,[*] and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Gould; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Murguia. MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Case Date:September 18, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1070

730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013)

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION; REDWOOD COUNTY MINNESOTA CORN AND SOYBEAN GROWERS; PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC.; REX NEDEREND; FRESNO COUNTY FARM BUREAU; NISEI FARMERS LEAGUE; CALIFORNIA DAIRY CAMPAIGN; GROWTH ENERGY; RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, FKA National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; AMERICAN TRUCKINGS ASSOCIATIONS; CENTER FOR NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY; THE CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

RICHARD W. COREY, in his official capacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board; MARY D. NICHOLS; DANIEL SPERLING; KEN YEAGER; DORENE D'ADAMO; BARBARA RIORDAN; JOHN R. BALMES; LYDIA H. KENNARD; SANDRA BERG; RON ROBERTS; JOHN G. TELLES, in his official capacity as member of the California Air Resources Board; RONALD O. LOVERIDGE, in his official capacity as member of the California Air Resources Board; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendants-Appellants,

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; SIERRA CLUB; CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants

Nos. 12-15131, 12-15135

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 18, 2013

         Argued and Submitted, October 16, 2012,  San Francisco, California

          Editorial Note:

          This Pagination of this case accurately reflects the pagination of the original published, though it may appears out of sequence.

Page 1071

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1072

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1073

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1074

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1075

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1076

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. Nos. 1:09-cv-02234-LJO-GSA, 1:10-cv-00163-LJO-DLB. D.C. Nos. 1:09-cv-02234-LJO-GSA, 1:10-cv-00163-LJO-DLB. Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding.

         M. Elaine Meckenstock (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Mark W. Poole, Gavin G. McCabe, David A. Zonana, Deputy Attorneys General, San Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellants.

         Sean H. Donahue (argued) Donahue & Goldberg, LLP, Washington, D.C., Timothy Joseph O'Connor, Environmental Defense Fund, San Francisco, California; James T.B. Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, New York; David Richard Pettit, Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Monica, California; Joanne Spalding and Devorah Ancel, Sierra Club, San Francisco, California; Jennifer Kate Rushlow, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellants.

         Peter D. Keisler (argued), Roger R. Martella, Jr., Paul Zidlicky, Eric D. McArthur, and Ryan C. Morris, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kurt E. Blase, Holland & Knight, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellees American Fuels & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association (formerly known as National Petrochemical and Refiners Association), American Trucking Associations, the Center for North American Energy Security, and the Consumer Energy Alliance.

         John C. O'Quinn (argued), Michael W. McConnell, Stuart A.C. Drake, Katherine Crytzer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Howard R. Rubin, Charles H. Knauss, Jennifer Baker Loeb, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, D.C.; Shannon S. Broome, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Oakland, California; Timothy Jones and John P. Kinsey, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Fresno, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Redwood County Minnesota Corn and Soybeans Growers; Penny Newman Grain, Inc.; Fresno County Farm Bureau; Nisei Farmers League; California Dairy Campaign; Rex Nederend; Growth Energy; and the Renewable Fuels Association.

         Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General, Kevin L. Griess and Katherine J. Spohn, Assistant Attorneys General, Lincoln, Nebraska, for Amici Curiae States of Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.

         Kevin Murray Fong, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae Western States Petroleum Association and Oregon Petroleum Association.

         Michael Rhead Enion, Sean Hecht, and Cara Horowitz, Frank G. Wells Environmental Law Clinic, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Truman National Security Project and Truman National Security Institute.

         Katherine Mayer Mangan, Mayer Mangan, PLC, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association.

         Matthew Dwight Zinn, Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Professors of Environmental Law.

         Deborah Ann Sivas, Alicia E. Thesing, Matthew H. Armsby, Daniel Cullenward, Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, Stanford, California, for Amici Curiae Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., W. Michael Hanemann, Ph.D., John Harte, Ph.D., Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., James C. McWilliams, Ph.D., Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Terry Root, Ph.D., Richard Somerville, Ph.D., John M. Wallace, Ph.D., James Zachos, Ph.D., and William R.L. Anderegg.

         Pierre G. Basmaji, Law Office of Pierre G. Basmaji, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Ecoshift Consulting, LLC.

         Deborah A. Sivas, Alicia E. Thesing, Leah J. Russin, Matthew H. Armsby, David Weiskopf, Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, Stanford, California, for Amici Curiae Michael Wang, Ph.D., Thomas L.Theis, Ph.D., Greg Thoma, Ph.D., Matthew Eckelman, Ph.D., and Kimberley Mullins, Ph.D. Candidate.

         John R. Kroger, Attorney General of Oregon, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, Denise G. Fjordbeck, Attorney-in-Charge, Civil/Administrative Appeals, Cecil A. Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland; Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts; Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, New York, New York; Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island; William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, Montpelier, Vermont; Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, Washington, for Amici Curiae States of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

         Jason A. Levine, John P. Elwood, and Jeremy C. Marwell, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Robin S. Conrad and Rachel L. Brand, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Harry M. Ng and Erik C. Baptist, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the American Petroleum Institute.

         Edward C. Mosca, Legal Counsel, New Hampshire House of Representatives, Concord, New Hampshire, for Amici Curiae Peter Bragdon, President of the New Hampshire State Senate, and William L. O'Brien, Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

         Elbert Lin and Samuel B. Gedge, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Law Professors.

         Joshua W. Abbot, Gary E. Marchant, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Tempe, Arizona, for Amici Curiae Scientific Experts.

         Gary J. Smith, Beveridge & Diamond, PC, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae California Manufacturers & Technology Association.

         Tammy W. Klein, Hart Energy, Houston, Texas, for Amicus Curiae Hart Energy.

         Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Ronald M. Gould,[*] and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Gould; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Murguia.

Page 1077

         SUMMARY[**]

         Fuel Standards/Commerce Clause

         The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's summary judgment, and vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded in an action which alleged that California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, § § 95480-90 (2011), violated the dormant Commerce Clause and was preempted by Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o).

         The panel held that the Fuel Standard's ethanol provisions were not facially discriminatory, and reversed that portion of the district court's decision and remanded for entry of partial summary judgment in favor of California Air Resources Board (" CARB" ). The panel also reversed the district court's decision that the Fuel Standard was an impermissible extraterritorial regulation and the panel directed that an order of partial summary judgment be entered in favor of CARB on those grounds. The panel remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the ethanol provisions discriminate in purpose or effect and, if not, to apply the balancing test established in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).

         The panel affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Fuel Standard's crude oil provisions (the 2011 Provisions), were not facially discriminatory, but reversed the district court's holding that the 2011 Provisions were discriminatory in purpose and effect. The panel directed the district court to enter an order of partial summary judgment in favor of CARB on those issues. The panel remanded to the district court to apply the Pike balancing test to the 2011 Provisions.

         The panel affirmed the district court's conclusion that Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act does not insulate California from scrutiny under...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP