In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-04636
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking: Judge Alsup dismissed the consolidated action as moot and without prejudice because the challenged 2020 Rule was no longer in controversy.
The dismissal ended the consolidated plaintiffs’ challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2020 Rule. The court stated that the plaintiffs could challenge that rule if it were reinstated.
What happened
In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking involved plaintiffs’ challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2020 Rule. They asked the court to set aside that rule and send it back to the agency.
The court found the action moot, meaning there was no current dispute for which it could grant effective relief. The possibility that a 2023 Rule might later be blocked and the 2020 Rule reinstated did not change that conclusion.
Judge William Alsup dismissed the action as moot and without prejudice. The court stated that the plaintiffs could challenge the 2020 Rule if it were reinstated.
The detailed version
- In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking · No. 3:20-cv-04636
- William Alsup
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
The consolidated actions challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2020 Rule. The plaintiffs sought an order setting aside the 2020 Rule and sending it back to the agency.
Mootness
The court held that the action was moot. Mootness means that circumstances have changed so there is no present dispute for which the court can grant effective relief. The court stated that the 2020 Rule was no longer in controversy. It also rejected the argument that the possibility of an injunction against the 2023 Rule, followed by reinstatement of the 2020 Rule, changed the result. If the 2020 Rule were reinstated, the plaintiffs could challenge it then.
Disposition
Judge William Alsup ordered the consolidated action dismissed as moot and without prejudice. The opinion did not decide the underlying validity of the 2020 Rule.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.