Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 11, 2026 Decided July 17, 2026 No. 25-1163 CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LEE M. ZELDIN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENTS AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, ET

BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: My colleagues are quick to claim we have jurisdiction to hear this motion, but I disagree. While we presumptively possess jurisdiction over “final agency action,” the Administrative Procedure Act deprives us of jurisdiction when, inter alia, “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The Court acknowledges EPA’s decision

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 6, 2019 Decided July 10, 2020 No. 18-1203 CLEAN WISCONSIN, PETITIONER v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND ANDREW WHEELER, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENTS BCCA APPEAL GROUP, ET AL.,

Diamond, District Judge The Clean Air Council and two minors ask me to declare that the United States of America, the President, the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior as well as the Departments themselves, and the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator have violated and will violate Plaintiffs' rights by considering amendments to environmental laws, by "rolling back" environmental regulations, and by making relat

Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge This case involves a challenge by Petitioners National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project, American Petroleum Institute, and Air Permitting Forum ("Petitioners") to Amendments to Regional Consistency Regulations ("Amended Regulations"),

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 20-2215 _______________ CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, Appellant v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylva

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 20-2215 _______________ CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, Appellant v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsyl

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 20-2215 _______________ CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, Appellant v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylva

Case: 18-60079 Document: 00515094677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 28, 2019 No.

Case: 23-60027 Document: 147-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 4, 2024 No. 23-60027

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Clean Air Implementation Project and other trade associations 1 brought this action for judicial review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule permitting the use of “credible evidence” to prove or disprove violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.

150 F.3d 1200 46 ERC 2089, 331 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 28Envtl. L. Rep. 21,519 CLEAN AIR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT, et al., Petitioners,v.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent,Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Battery CouncilInternational, Intervenors. Nos. 97-1117, 97-1125, 97-1130, 97-1142, 97-1169, 97-1173,97-1179,97-1190, 97-1195, 97-1226, 97-1241, 97-1242,

EPA Acceptance and Use of Donations Under the Clean Air Act Section 104(b)(4) of the Clean Air Act does not permit the EPA to accept and use dona- tions of money. Section 104(b)(4) of the Clean Air Act permits the EPA to accept items of personal property (other than money), such as an automobile, so long as the property in ques- tion would be received for use directly in the anti-pollution research authorized by section 104.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sunoco Partners Marketing and : Terminals, L.P., : Petitioner : : v. : : Clean Air Council and Commonwealth : of Pennsylvania, Department of : Environmental Protection, : No. 145 C.D. 2019 Respondents : Argued: Sep

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 18, 2022 Decided June 20, 2023 No. 21-1251 HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION DISTRIBUTORS INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND MICHAEL S. REGAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

226 F.Supp.2d 705 (2002) CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, v. Bradley L. MALLORY, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and James M. Seif, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants. Civil Action No. 01-179. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 18, 2002. *706

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 651–728 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 25, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 651–728 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 25, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit