Murray Energy Corp. v. Adm'r of Envtl. Prot. Agency
| Decision Date | 29 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-1093, No. 17-1170,No. 16-2432,16-2432 |
| Citation | 861 F.3d 529 |
| Parties | MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION ; Murray American Energy, Inc.; The American Coal Company ; American Energy Corporation; The Harrison County Coal Company ; Kenamerican Resources, Inc.; The Marion County Coal Company; The Marshall County Coal Company; The Monongalia County Coal Company; Ohioamerican Energy, Inc.; The Ohio County Coal Company; UtahAmerican Energy, Inc., Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant – Appellant, and Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition; Keeper of the Mountains Foundation, Movants. Murray Energy Corporation ; Murray American Energy, Inc.; American Coal Company; American Energy Corporation; Harrison County Coal Company ; Kenamerican Resources, Inc.; Marion County Coal Company; Marshall County Coal Company; Monongalia County Coal Company; Ohioamerican Energy, Inc.; Ohio County Coal Company ; UtahAmerican Energy, Inc., Plaintiffs –Appellees, v. The Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant – Appellee, v. Keeper of the Mountains Foundation; Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Movants – Appellants. Cause of Action Institute; State of West Virginia; State of Arizona; State of Arkansas; State of Georgia; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Michigan; State of Nebraska; State of Nevada; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma; State of South Carolina; State of Texas; State of Utah; State of Wisconsin; State of Wyoming, Amici Supporting Appellees. Murray Energy Corporation ; Murray American Energy, Inc.; American Coal Company; American Energy Corporation; Harrison County Coal Company ; Kenamerican Resources, Inc.; Marion County Coal Company; Marshall County Coal Company; Monongalia County Coal Company; Ohioamerican Energy, Inc.; Ohio County Coal Company ; UtahAmerican Energy, Inc., Plaintiffs –Appellees, v. The Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant – Appellant, v. Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition; Keeper of the Mountains Foundation; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Movants. Cause of Action Institute; State of West Virginia; State of Arizona; State of Arkansas; State of Georgia; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Michigan; State of Nebraska; State of Nevada; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma; State of South Carolina; State of Texas; State of Utah; State of Wisconsin; State of Wyoming, Amici Supporting Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Matthew Littleton, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William V. DePaulo, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. John Lazzaretti, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Gautam Srinivasan, Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Scheller Neumann, Patrick R. Jacobi, Richard Gladstein, Laura J.S. Brown, Sonya Shea, Environment & Natural Resources Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee United States Environmental Protection Agency. Geoffrey K. Barnes, Robert D. Cheren, Danelle M. Gagliardi, Robert B. McCaleb, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. Joshua N. Schopf, Eric R. Bolinder, CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Cause of Action Institute. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, Erica N. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Amici State of West Virginia, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, State of Georgia, State of Kansas, State of Louisiana, State of Michigan, State of Nebraska, State of Nevada, State of Ohio, State of Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of Texas, State of Utah, State of Wisconsin, and State of Wyoming.
Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
In this case, we consider the bounds of a federal court's authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to correct an alleged failure by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a non-discretionary, CAA-based act or duty. See 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). The precise issue before us is whether this authority extends to review of the EPA's management of its continuous duty to evaluate the potential employment impact of CAA administration and enforcement. See 42 U.S.C. § 7621(a). We hold that it does not.
In 1977, after extensive public debate about the effects of the CAA's environmental rules on employment, Congress enacted Section 321 of the CAA as a mechanism for reviewing those effects. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 316–18 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077, 1395–97.
At issue in this case is Section 321(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7621(a), which directs the EPA to continuously evaluate the potential employment impact of CAA administration and enforcement. Section 321(a) provides:
The [EPA] Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of this chapter and applicable implementation plans, including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.
In 2014, Murray Energy Corporation and related companies (collectively, "Murray") filed the instant suit against the EPA Administrator, alleging a failure to comply with Section 321(a). Murray filed its suit under Section 304(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2), which in pertinent part provides: "[A]ny person may commence a civil action on his own behalf ... against the [EPA] Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under [the CAA] which is not discretionary with the Administrator." Murray's suit requested an injunction (1) ordering the EPA to conduct Section 321(a) evaluations; and (2) prohibiting the EPA from engaging in certain regulatory activities until it had conducted such evaluations.
At the outset of the litigation, the EPA moved to dismiss Murray's suit on jurisdictional grounds. The EPA first argued that its Section 321(a) duty was not a non-discretionary duty cognizable under Section 304(a)(2). In a subsequent filing, the EPA added that Murray lacked standing to challenge the EPA's alleged non-compliance with Section 321(a). The district court rejected both of the EPA's jurisdictional arguments, and declined to dismiss Murray's suit at the pleading stage.
Subsequently, the EPA moved for summary judgment and simultaneously proffered fifty-three documents to prove the agency's compliance with Section 321(a). The EPA's documents—which the agency conceded had not been prepared explicitly for the purpose of Section 321(a) compliance—included regulatory impact analyses, economic impact analyses, white papers, and other reports. The EPA asked the district court to grant summary judgment in its favor on the basis of its proffer or, in the alternative, that the court grant summary judgment in Murray's favor if it were to conclude that the agency's proffer was insufficient.
Murray moved to hold in abeyance the EPA's motion for summary judgment pending the completion of discovery. The district court granted Murray's motion, and discovery continued.1
At the close of discovery, the EPA filed a renewed motion for summary judgment. The EPA reiterated its position that Murray's suit was not judicially cognizable and that, even if it was, Murray lacked standing to bring its suit. Finally, the EPA renewed its request for an up-or-down merits ruling that its proffer demonstrated compliance with Section 321(a). In light of the continuous nature of the EPA's duty under Section 321(a), the EPA's proffer at the renewed summary judgment stage increased from fifty-three to sixty-four relevant documents.
On October 17, 2016, the district court issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment in Murray's favor. Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy , No. 5:14-cv-39, 2016 WL 6083946 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 17, 2016) ("Summary Judgment Opinion "). The court first held that Section 321(a) creates a non-discretionary duty that gives rise to Section 304(a)(2) jurisdiction. The court then held that Murray possessed standing to seek redress for alleged procedural, economic, and informational injuries.
Finally, the court ruled in Murray's favor on the merits. The court read Section 321(a) as obligating the EPA to assess the actual, site-specific employment effects of CAA implementation. The court concluded that the EPA's proffered documents did not satisfy this requirement. In light of this conclusion, the court ordered the EPA to file a "plan and schedule for compliance with [Section] 321(a) both generally and in the specific area of the effects of its regulations on the coal industry." Id. at *28.
On October 31, 2016, the EPA submitted a response to the Summary Judgment Opinion . The EPA's response opened with a set of objections to the court's jurisdictional, merits, and preliminary remedial rulings. Nonetheless, the EPA's response ultimately set forth a proposed plan and schedule to supplement its performance of Section 321(a) evaluations. The EPA's proposal drew sharp criticism from Murray.
On December 14, 2016—before the district court had resolved the issue of an appropriate remedy—Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition and related non-governmental organizations (collectively, "Mon Valley") filed a motion for leave to intervene in support of the EPA. Specifically, Mon Valley claimed to have an interest in the EPA's regulatory activities under the CAA, and sought intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to prevent Section 321(a)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Allred
-
Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. United States
...vice that Congress appeared intent on avoiding by writing a nondiscretionary requirement into the statute." Murray Energy Corp. v. Adm'r of EPA, 861 F.3d 529, 535 (4th Cir. 2017) (interpreting the Clean Air Act). Still, § 1270(a)(2) plays an important role: It gives interested parties a mea......
- Battle v. United States
-
Shinaberry v. Town of Murfreesboro
...Cir. 2013); see U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 866 F.3d 199, 210 n.6 (4th Cir. 2017); Murray Energy Corp. v. Admin. of Envt'l Protection Agency, 861 F.3d 529, 537 n.5 (4th Cir. 2017); vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, 849 F.3d 163, 167 n.1 (4th Cir. 2017); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr.......
-
SYMMETRY'S MANDATE: CONSTRAINING THE POLITICIZATION OF AMERICAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
...scheme of inter-agency collaboration, we have appropriately been left on the sideline."). (141.) Murray Energy Corp. v. Adm'r of EPA, 861 F.3d 529, 532-33 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting 42 U.S.C. [section] 7621(a)). Technically, this suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. [section] 7604(a)(2), which pe......
-
CHAPTER 11 LITIGATION UPDATE: HIGHLIGHTS OF 2017 LITIGATION RELATED TO AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT IMPACTING THE OIL, GAS, AND MINING SECTORS
...completed December 22, 2017. 87 [Page 11 - 14] iii. Murray Energy Corp. et al v. Administrator of Evnt'l Prot. Agency • Case citation: 861 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 2017), petition for cert filed • Factual and legal background: Murray Energy Corp. and other coal companies sued EPA under the citize......