Arizona Public Service Company v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
211 F.3d 1280 (2000)
- Written by Lauren Groth, JD
Facts
In 1990, Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., that granted Indian tribes the same power to regulate air quality on their reservation lands as states had on state lands. This included the power to create implementation plans aimed at ensuring that air quality met national standards, the ability to designate land to comply with certain standards, and the ability to create a permitting program for potential air polluters. Shortly afterward, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) proposed rules implementing the amendments. The EPA determined that the amendments were a delegation of federal authority to the Indian Tribes that permitted the tribes to regulate all air quality within the boundaries of the reservation. The EPA further determined that reservation lands included lands held in trusts. These proposed rules were ultimately adopted as the final Tribal Authority Rule. Arizona Public Service Company (plaintiff) challenged the adoption of the Tribal Authority Rule on two grounds. First, it argued that Congress did not delegate to Indian tribes the authority to regulate air quality on lands held by nonmembers within a reservation. Second, it argued that Congress did not mean for the term “reservation” to include trust lands.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, C.J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
