In a move Tom Goldstein calls “a fairly radical policy reversal for the EPA,” the Obama Administration on Friday made its first move to reverse Bush Administration actions in the Supreme Court. The move to seek dismissal of the Bush Administration’s appeal in EPA v. New Jersey was justified by the acting solicitor general because the EPA has determined to follow the D.C. Circuit’s opinion striking down the Bush EPA’s rule as illegal.
According to Goldstein, 17 states had opposed the EPA rule. In addition to New Jersey, the states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin were on the case.
Not noted by Goldstein, however, is that these were not the only states with a dog in this fight. The “Industry State Intervenors” supporting the Bush EPA rule included Alabama, Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming. These seven states were on the losing end of the administration change.
The states often do not present a monolithic front on regulatory cases — due to geographic or industry differences as often if not more so than due to political differences — and it’s important to keep that in mind when examining how “change” in Washington might be viewed by state regulators across the nation.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the senior political writer at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found