Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2021

State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-10642
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePreliminary InjunctionEnvironmental
In one sentence

In State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Judge Liman extended the temporary restraining order and stay while EPA reviewed an error.

Who this affects

The order directly affected the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew Wheeler by continuing the prohibition on making the 2020 Rule effective before January 22, 2021. It also set deadlines and briefing and hearing requirements for all parties.

What happened

State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency concerns a challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency rule changing pesticide application protections near property borders. The court had temporarily blocked the rule from taking effect, and the Government reported discovering an error in information supporting the rule.

The court found good cause to extend the temporary restraining order and stay until January 22, 2021. It also granted the Government more time to file the administrative record, allowed supplemental letter briefs, and adjourned the preliminary-injunction hearing.

Judge Liman ordered the parties to address the reported error and prepare an expedited schedule for possible summary-judgment motions. The order did not decide whether the 2020 Rule was lawful.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
State of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · No. 1:20-cv-10642
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 8, 2021

Background

The plaintiffs sought to prevent the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew Wheeler, in his official capacity as the agency’s Administrator, from putting into effect the “Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard: Revision of the Application Exclusion Zone Requirements,” referred to as the “2020 Rule.” The court had previously entered a temporary restraining order, or TRO, blocking the rule’s effective date, and had scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is a court order that maintains the existing situation while a case continues.

The Government reported that it had discovered “an error in certain information underlying the rule” and requested time to consider the error and its possible effect. The opinion states that the 2020 Rule relied in part on EPA-approved training to support the Government’s position that training addressed risks from pesticide spray or drift after changes to the application exclusion zone, or AEZ. The Government reported that some trainings approved since 2018 had not included information about preventing people from being contacted by spray or drift. The court found that information potentially material and said it could substantially undermine the Government’s arguments or at least require careful consideration.

Court’s orders

The court found good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2) to extend the TRO and the stay of the 2020 Rule’s effective date. The court ordered the following:

- The Government’s request for more time to submit the administrative record was granted. The Government could file the record, and make corrections to the record or its papers, by January 15, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. - The parties were permitted to submit supplemental letter briefs of no more than three single-spaced pages by January 19, 2021, limited to the effect of the reported error and any new information on the issues before the court. - The hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction and stay was adjourned to January 21, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. - The TRO and the stay of the 2020 Rule’s effective date were extended to January 22, 2021. The EPA and Andrew Wheeler were enjoined and restrained from taking action to make the final rule effective before that date.

The parties were also directed to meet and confer about an expedited schedule for resolving the case through competing motions for summary judgment. The order addressed timing and interim relief; it did not decide the merits of the challenge to the 2020 Rule.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.