State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Background

The case concerned federal emission guidelines for municipal solid-waste landfills. Under the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2016 rule, states had to submit implementation plans by May 30, 2017. The agency had to approve or disapprove those plans by September 30, 2017. If a state failed to submit a plan or the agency disapproved one, the agency had to issue a federal plan by November 30, 2017.

The parties agreed that the agency had failed to perform certain required duties under the regulations. After finding that the plaintiff states had standing, the court granted the states’ motion for partial summary judgment and ordered the agency to approve or disapprove existing state plans by September 6, 2019, and issue regulations establishing a federal plan by November 6, 2019.

After that ruling, the agency amended its regulations. The new rule moved the state-plan submission deadline to August 29, 2019, and allowed the agency to issue a federal plan at any time within two years after specified findings or disapprovals. The agency then asked under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to change or vacate the earlier order and judgment, including the November 6, 2019 deadline.

Legal standard

Rule 60(b)(5) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment when applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable. The party seeking the change must first show a significant change in circumstances. If that showing is made, the court must decide whether the requested change is appropriately limited to addressing the changed legal or factual conditions.

Analysis

The court held that the agency had not met its burden. It found that the agency had violated the old rule, received an unfavorable judgment, and then issued the new rule to reset its required deadlines rather than to remedy the violation. The court distinguished cases in which a change in law was made by Congress or another non-party. Here, the agency itself amended its regulations after the states sued, after the court found a violation, and after the court ordered the agency to comply.

The court also concluded that the new rule did not cure a defect identified in the old rule. Instead, the new regulations delayed the agency’s obligations. Allowing the agency to avoid judicial review simply by changing deadlines after a violation had been found could permit agencies to evade judgments involving missed deadlines.

The court further found that the remaining circumstances supported enforcing the judgment. The agency had issued a proposed federal plan on August 22, 2019, and the notice-and-comment period had ended by October 7, 2019. Because the agency had made significant progress and little work remained, the record did not show that the court-imposed six-month deadline was no longer equitable. The court also found that issuing a federal plan would not prevent states from submitting new plans or the agency from approving them.

Disposition

The court DENIED the agency’s Motion to Amend Order and Judgment. It STAYED the judgment for 60 days so either party could file a notice of appeal. The stay was set to lift automatically on January 7, 2020, if no notice of appeal was filed. The court also terminated Docket No. 123 as MOOT.