Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S Environmental Protection Agency
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-05174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, Judge Cote vacated the grant-recipient ban and remanded the matter after finding EPA’s directive arbitrary and capricious.
The ruling affects the EPA, its federal advisory committees, and people receiving EPA grants who may serve on those committees. The directive may not categorically exclude those grant recipients, and the EPA must return to its earlier standards unless they are lawfully changed.
What happened
In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Natural Resources Defense Council asked the court to set aside an Environmental Protection Agency directive and send the matter back for further proceedings. The directive barred people receiving EPA grants from serving on EPA federal advisory committees.
The court had previously ruled that the directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the EPA gave no reason for changing its longstanding practice and had no evidence that grant recipients were biased. The court considered whether to set aside the directive or return it to the EPA without setting it aside.
Judge Cote granted the Natural Resources Defense Council’s request for remand and vacatur, meaning the directive was set aside and the matter was sent back to the EPA. She concluded that the EPA’s deficiencies were serious and that setting aside the directive would not be disruptive. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S Environmental Protection Agency · No. 1:19-cv-05174
- Denise Cote
- Apr. 15, 2020
Background
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) previously won summary judgment in this case. In the earlier opinion, the court held that an EPA directive was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. The directive provided that no member of an EPA federal advisory committee could be receiving EPA grants, including as a principal investigator, co-investigator, or someone otherwise receiving substantial direct benefits from an EPA grant.
NRDC then asked the court to vacate the directive and remand the matter to the EPA for further proceedings. The EPA asked for remand without vacatur. Vacatur is the setting aside of an agency action; remand sends the matter back to the agency.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when an agency violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the usual remedy is to vacate the agency action and remand it for further proceedings. Courts considering remand without vacatur weigh the seriousness of the agency’s deficiencies against the likely disruptive consequences of setting aside the action.
The court found the EPA’s deficiencies serious. The earlier opinion had determined that the EPA failed to explain why it changed its longstanding practice of allowing EPA grant recipients to serve on EPA advisory committees. It had also determined that the administrative record provided no basis for finding that grant recipients were biased because they received those grants.
The court further found that vacatur was unlikely to be disruptive. It would not require the EPA to reopen the current composition of any advisory committees. Instead, it would prevent the EPA from categorically excluding grant recipients under the directive and require the EPA to return to the standards it had historically applied until those standards were changed by the directive.
Disposition
The court granted NRDC’s request for remand and vacatur. It vacated the directive’s provision barring the specified EPA grant recipients from serving on EPA federal advisory committees and remanded the matter. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.