From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
New York v. Reilly
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
969 F.2d 1147 (1992)
Facts
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act required the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) (defendant) to establish emissions standards for sources of harmful pollution. In establishing the standards, the EPA had to take various factors into consideration, including available technology and cost. In accordance with § 111, the EPA began promulgating rules to regulate incinerator smokestacks. The EPA proposed a rule that would have required incinerator operators to sort out recyclable items before burning waste. The EPA submitted the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12291, and the OMB rejected the rule. The EPA appealed to the President’s Council on Competitiveness (the Council), which rejected the proposed rule for failing to meet cost-benefit analysis guidelines. In rejecting the proposed rule, the Council provided the EPA with a fact sheet that explained its reasoning. As a result, the EPA changed its findings and abandoned the proposed rule. New York and Florida (plaintiffs) challenged the EPA’s decision to abandon the proposed rules, arguing that the EPA improperly relied on the Council’s findings rather than the EPA’s own expertise.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Henderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
