Arkema Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
618 F.3d 1 (2010)
- Written by Jack Newell, JD
Facts
Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) to gradually phase out the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) over a period of about 30 years. In 2003 the EPA adopted a cap-and-trade system whereby companies could buy and sell a finite number of credits that gave them the right to pollute based on how many they had. Transactions could take place between companies or within a company among different types of HCFCs. Both transactions were treated the same way by the EPA. In 2010, the EPA promulgated a new rule that changed the treatment of the latter type of transaction. This would cause a reduction in credits for all the companies that had made that sort of trade in the past. Arkema (plaintiff) sued the EPA over the new rule, claiming that it attached new legal obligations to their sales of HCFC credits and was therefore impermissibly retroactive.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
Dissent (Randolph, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.