National Association of Manufacturers v. Environmental Protection Agency

750 F.3d 921 (2014)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Association of Manufacturers v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
750 F.3d 921 (2014)

Facts

In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) established stricter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter. This rule was enacted after an EPA notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comments on all issues related to the EPA’s proposal to lower the particulate-matter NAAQS. Under the new rule, the EPA revised the existing acceptable level of particulate-matter emissions down from the previously acceptable level established by the EPA in 2007 after concluding that the existing standards were not sufficiently protective of public health. The EPA based this decision on several epidemiological studies that showed statistically significant associations between adverse health and levels of particulate matter that were below the 2007 particulate-matter NAAQS. The new standard was slightly lower than the lowest concentration reported to cause health effects in epidemiological studies. The National Association of Manufacturers (the manufacturers) (plaintiff) petitioned the court to review the EPA’s new rule, arguing that the EPA’s revisions to the NAAQS for fine particulate matter were unreasonable. The manufacturers argued that the EPA failed to request comments on whether to revise the particulate-matter NAAQS and also did not address comments submitted to the EPA by the manufacturers that cited studies supporting the maintenance of the existing standards. The manufacturers also claim that the EPA afforded disproportionate weight to those studies that found associations between particulate-matter exposure and adverse health effects.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership