Federal Courts Assess Administration's Environmental Science
Two recent federal court decisions consider whether the Bush Administration properly engaged in the legally required data gathering process before issuing environmental regulations.
Last week, the Western District of Washington handed down a victory for a coalition of environment organizations who opposed new pesticide regulations. In an opinion by Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, the court held that the EPA's decision to ignore the "unanimous agreement" of its own scientists regarding the impact of new regulations on endangered species was "arbitrary and capricious," and therefore invalid. In striking down the new regulation, the court added that "[t]he administrative record is striking in its total lack of any evidence of technical or scientific support for the policy positions ultimately adopted . . . ."
Coughenour's decision stands in contrast with the D.C. Circuit's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. Although only one of the two judges in the majority would have reached the merits of this case (Judge Sentelle held that the plaintiffs lacked standing), Judge Randolph's opinion deferred to an EPA finding that "'a causal linkage' between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming 'cannot be unequivocally established.'"
A recent study in Science magazine disagrees with Judge Randolph and the EPA. That study found that, of 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, not one disagreed with the "consensus view" that human activities, including greenhouse gas emissions, are contributing to global warming.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the D.C. Circuit's opinion.