Tag Archives: litigation

Post from the past: “Justice Janice Rogers Brown gets it right on the GHG endangerment finding”

I posted this on December 12, 1012….the USEPA GHG endangerment finding was unwarranted (and incorrect).

“USEPA has embarked on issuing a variety of regulations to control emission of greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act (CAA). This flurry of activity results from an earlier Supreme Court ruling that upheld USEPA’s GHG endangerment finding under the CAA.  The endangement finding was a clear stretch of the imagination by the court. A legal challenge to GHG rules was filed in the US District Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, and a panel of judges upheld their legality. A petition was filed requesting that the entire court rule on the appeal, which was recently denied. In her desent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown provides a good explanation of why the Supreme Court erred in their ruling on the GHG endangerment finding, which indeed they did. The broad expanse of the term “pollutant” in that ruling is well-beyond the original context and intent of the Clean Air Act statute.

I have provided the full written dissent of Justice Brown below. As during the 1990s in litigation involving the Safe Drinking Water Act, the prevailing opinion explained by Sentelle provides political cover for a lawless agency (USEPA), rather than recognizing and honoring the rule of law as intended by the CAA. If congress intended GHG emissions to be regulated, congress could have explicitly enacted legislation to do so. (Click here for the full ruling.)

cover

page 1 crop

page 2 crop

page 3 crop

Page 4 crop

page 5 crop

page 6 crop

page 7 crop

page 8 crop

page 9 crop

page 10 crop

page 11 crop

page 12 crop

page 13 crop

page 14 crop

page 15 cover

page 16 cover

page 17 crop

page 18 cover

page 19 crop

page 20 crop

page 21 crop

page 22 crop

page 23 crop

Professor Peter Ridd (David) vs James Cook University (Goliath)

“We finally got home from Brisbane where the court hearing was held about 1200 km to the south, and it has been good to reflect on events. I am very hopeful and Judge Vasta seemed to indicate that he would try to hand down his judgement around Easter. So, until then we should wait and see.” click here

Misleading children to file “climate change” lawsuits is abusive, counterproductive

“Beyond ruling on this case, however, Diamond went further to rebuke U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States that the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate. When Aiken ordered that lawsuit to trial in 2016, she said “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” becoming the first U.S. judge to recognize that right.” click here

New York climate change lawsuit unwarranted, counterproductive

“Several attorneys general and legal experts accused New York Thursday of overstepping the law after the state leveled lawsuits against energy companies for supposedly contributing to man-made global warming.” click here

Kudos to Marie Jean Pierre

“A jury awarded a Florida hotel dishwasher more than $21 million after determining that the woman’s employer discriminated against her religious beliefs by forcing her to work Sundays and firing her when she did not show up for religious reasons.” click here

Young climate advocates are being seriously misled to believe that their legal action will benefit their cause. It will not.

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a Dec. 26 ruling largely missed by major media outlets. The court granted DOJ’s petition for interlocutory appeal that decreases the chances of the climate lawsuit going to trial anytime soon.” click here

Kids pursuing climate change lawsuit are being seriously misinformed

“District Court reverses itself, grants the government an immediate “interlocutory” appeal to the 9th Circuit, putting the trial on hold indefinitely, in a case likely to end up in Supreme Court.”  click here