Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

The Government Uses “Standing” Doctrine to Evade Judicial Review

by April 22, 2025
April 22, 2025
The Government Uses “Standing” Doctrine to Evade Judicial Review

Thomas A. Berry, Brent Skorup, and Christine Marsden

Under the Clean Air Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may grant a special waiver to the state of California to combat environmental concerns specific to California, such as smog in Los Angeles. But over the last fifteen years, the EPA has used that limited waiver process to empower California regulators to address global climate change through strict vehicle emissions and electric car mandates that bind all US automakers.

Diamond Alternative Energy and other producers of liquid fuel sued to block the enforcement of one such EPA waiver. They filed declarations explaining that California’s strict mandates would cause fewer fuel-producing cars to be sold, depressing fuel sales and harming the fuel producers financially. However, the DC Circuit concluded that it was not enough to articulate these predictable effects of coercive regulations. The court held that the fuel producers had failed to demonstrate that vacating the EPA waiver would increase fuel purchases. The court thus reasoned that the fuel producers had not proven that blocking the waiver would “redress” their injury. On that basis, the court dismissed the case for a lack of standing.

The fuel producers asked the Supreme Court to review their case, and the Court granted that request. Now, Cato has filed an amicus brief in support of Diamond Alternative Energy.

In our brief, we highlight lower courts’ misuse of standing doctrines to dismiss meritorious, viable challenges to government regulation. Indeed, we recently fell victim to the DC Circuit’s dubious standing requirements in a First Amendment case against a federal agency, Cato Institute v. SEC (2021).

Standing doctrine is meant to ensure that federal cases hinge on real conflicts, to prevent “turning judges into advice columnists.” However, judges’ application of modern standing doctrine bears little resemblance to the historical requirements derived from the Constitution’s Case or Controversy Clause of Article III.

The DC Circuit’s decision in this case illustrates that standing doctrine is too often used as an arbitrary barrier, blocking the courthouse doors to parties who have genuine legal grievances. In this case, the fuel producers unquestionably have a valid interest in blocking the waiver. Although California’s regulations bind vehicle manufacturers, those manufacturers are not the sole targets of the regulations. California has been explicit about its desire to reduce the use of fuel through the passage of emissions regulations.

The Supreme Court found in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) that the “predictable effects” of a regulation can be used to establish standing. The fuel producers logically argue that strict emissions rules will depress demand for their products, thus harming their economic interests. That should be enough to show a redressable injury and establish standing.

Overly strict applications of standing doctrine are not just inconsistent with the original meaning of the Constitution, they are also inconsistent with established precedent. The Supreme Court should reverse the DC Circuit so that the courts below will finally consider the legal challenge to EPA’s waiver on the merits.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
House Republican enters race for Mitch McConnell’s Senate seat, setting up high-stakes GOP primary
next post
Food Freedom Is Personal Freedom—A Personal Crusade Should Not Become National Policy

You may also like

The State of Student Loan Forgiveness: October 2024

October 17, 2024

Weak Income Tax Collections Pose Challenges for Some...

August 7, 2023

New Arizona Data Shows School Choice Is Saving...

August 28, 2024

Cease Government Funding of Counter-Misinformation Research and Activism:...

December 10, 2024

In Yale University ERISA Case, Plaintiffs Lose but...

July 19, 2023

A Speaker-less House Does Not Stop the Presidential...

January 3, 2025

There are No ‘Banned Books’ in America, But...

October 6, 2023

Nicotine E‑Cigarettes Might Do More than Save the...

June 21, 2023

Medicare and Social Security Are Bad Policies, Regardless...

August 4, 2023

Access to Methadone Treatment Is Pathetically Low

June 28, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Elon Musk warpath against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ rattles House GOP

      June 4, 2025
    • Durbin obstruction threat chills Senate as Trump nominees hang in balance

      June 4, 2025
    • Elon Musk posts ‘Kill Bill’ meme in latest push to nix Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 4, 2025
    • Why ADX Can Mislead You — And How to Avoid It

      June 4, 2025
    • S&P 500 on the Verge of 6,000: What’s at Stake?

      June 4, 2025
    • Johnson says Republicans ‘don’t have time’ to craft new Trump plan despite Musk’s call to ‘KILL the BILL’

      June 4, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,143)
    • Investing (2,006)
    • Politics (15,518)
    • Stocks (3,127)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved