EPA suit may test national injunction procedures

The lawsuit filed Friday by California and 22 other states seeking to block the Trump administration's decision to stop them from setting their own emissions standards may test how judges react to what could be heightened standards for pausing federal initiatives while they work their way through the courts.

In light of an unusual decision by the Supreme Court to halt a federal judge's nationwide injunction in a recent immigration case, courts may be more hesitant to issue what the government considers an unwarranted barrier to policymaking.

"Generally speaking, federal court judges are going to be cautious about issuing nationwide injunctions in light of the Supreme Court's action in the area recently," said UC Irvine School of Law professor Richard L. Hasen.

University of Pittsburgh School of Law Professor Arthur Hellman was more hesitant to draw conclusions from the high court because it did not explain why it decided to intervene. He said if it wanted judges to be more conservative in issuing such sweeping relief "it would say so."

"The district judge in this case may say 'I'm not supposed to read tea leaves, and I'm not supposed to decide cases on a mood or impression that an order may give,'" he said.

As millions around the world rallied to protest government inaction on climate change on Friday, 23 states sued the Trump administration's challenge to California's authority to set its own, more stringent rules on emissions requirements. They seek an injunction to block federal preemption of state fuel economy standards. California v. Chao, 19-CV02826 (D.C., filed Sept. 20, 2019).

Whether the District of Columbia federal court issues temporary relief or not could serve as a test case over how responsive district court judges are to what some legal experts consider guidance from the Supreme Court to more conservatively issue such universal remedies.

In an immigration case in which a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an immigration policy barring almost all asylum applications at the Mexican border, the high court stepped in and stayed the injunction. It offered no explanation as to why it intervened or the fault in U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar's decision. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 19-CV04073 (N.D. Cal., filed July 16, 2019).

Trump said in 2018 every case in the California courts, particularly in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "means an automatic loss" for his administration after Tigar similarly granted a temporary restraining order over a policy prohibiting certain immigrants from claiming asylum in 2018.

Hellman noted the "extraordinary number of these injunction cases" that have held up federal policy initiatives.

While the 23 state attorneys general do not seek a nationwide injunction because only California has the ability to set its own emissions standards, a decision to temporarily block federal preemption would similarly curtail the administration's attempt to institute a single set of national requirements.

Revoking California's authority to set more stringent rules on tailpipe climate pollution, which 13 other states follow, "meets President Trump's commitment to establish uniform fuel economy standards for vehicles across the United States, ensuring that no state has the authority to impose its policies on everybody else in our whole country," said Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

Case Western School of Law Professor Jonathan Adler noted differences in this lawsuit and the immigration case the Supreme Court recently weighed in on, explaining "judicial invalidation doesn't automatically have the same nationwide implications."

The high court "is clearly concerned about the proliferation of such injunctions and is likely to take action at some point," just not in this case, he added.

Environmental Defense Fund attorney Sean Donahue said he does not think an injunction will be issued, but noted the "courts are ultimately going to say that these actions by the EPA are unlawful." Donahue said environmental organizations are still evaluating how to proceed.

The Trump administration's implementation of national emissions standards, which have not yet been released, is expected to prompt more litigation.