State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Background

The plaintiffs are eight states. Under the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations in effect on October 28, 2016, states had to submit implementation plans by May 30, 2017; the agency had to approve or disapprove those plans by September 30, 2017; and, in specified circumstances, the agency had to issue a federal plan within six months after the submission deadline.

The parties agreed that the agency failed to perform certain nondiscretionary duties under 40 C.F.R. § 60.27. After finding that the plaintiffs had standing, the court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment. It ordered the agency to approve or disapprove existing state plans by September 6, 2019, and to issue regulations establishing a federal plan by November 6, 2019.

The agency later amended its regulations, changing the deadlines. It then asked the court to amend its order and judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which permits relief from a judgment in certain circumstances. The court denied that request on November 5, 2019, and temporarily stayed the judgment for 60 days to allow the agency to appeal. The agency then moved for a stay pending appeal.

Stay standard

For a stay pending appeal, the court considered four factors: whether the applicant was likely to succeed, whether it would suffer irreparable injury without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lay. The court applied a sliding-scale approach, under which a stronger showing on one factor can offset a weaker showing on another. If the applicant cannot show a strong likelihood of success, it must at least show a substantial case on the merits or serious legal questions, while also showing that the balance of hardships sharply favors a stay.

Court’s reasoning

The court continued to believe that the agency was unlikely to succeed on appeal because it had failed to meet its burden under Rule 60(b)(5). The court recognized, however, that the law was not clear given the unusual facts. It said the appeal raised serious legal questions about the division of authority between the branches of government, including because the agency itself had changed the relevant rules.

The court nevertheless found that the balance of hardships did not sharply favor the agency. Compliance with the judgment was not a substantial burden because the agency had already issued and received comments on a proposed federal plan. By contrast, the plaintiffs continued to suffer harm from delaying implementation of the emission guidelines, and more than a month had passed since the original deadline for issuing the federal plan.

Disposition

The court denied the agency’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal. The opinion did not grant a stay.