Alliance for Clean Coal v. Bayh
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
72 F.3d 556 (1995)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
The Alliance for Clean Coal (Alliance) (plaintiff), a trade association whose members marketed and transported low-sulfur coal mined in the western United States, filed suit in federal court against Evan Bayh in his official capacity as governor of the State of Indiana, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (the Commission), and others (defendants) alleging that Indiana’s Environmental Compliance Plans Act (ECPA) violated the federal Commerce Clause by favoring coal produced in Indiana at the expense of coal produced in the western United States. The ECPA was enacted in response to 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) which required coal-fired generating plants to significantly reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. Pursuant to the CAA amendments, the plants could do so by using low-sulfur coal commonly found in the western states or by installing devices to scrub sulfur dioxide emissions before they reached the atmosphere in the high-sulfur states like Indiana. Consequently, low-sulfur states enjoyed a competitive advantage over high-sulfur states. The district court found that the ECPA intended to promote Indiana coal at the expense of low-sulfur coal, thereby unconstitutionally burdening interstate commerce. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cummings, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
