THOMAS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.
v.
SIERRA CLUB ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The EPA sought a stay of a district court contempt order requiring it to promulgate emission standards for radionuclides under the Clean Air Act, with the dispute centered on whether the statute required standards for all sources of a hazardous air pollutant or permitted standards for some sources only. The Court denied the stay application, finding that the applicants had not demonstrated a conflict of authority sufficient to warrant the extraordinary relief of a stay pending appeal.
[1] A court may deny a stay pending appeal to a Court of Appeals when the applicants have not pointed to a conflict of authority on the issue decided by the lower court.
[2] A Circuit Justice may deny a stay pending appeal to a Court of Appeals when it is uncertain whether four Members of the Supreme Court would vote to grant certiorari to re…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Justice Rehnquist,
Circuit Justice.
Applicants, the Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA, and the Idaho Mining Association, ask me to stay an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pending appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The order holds the Administrator in contempt for failing to promulgate certain emission standards for radionuclides as required by an earlier District Court order. The controversy has reached this point due to a disagreement between the District Court and the agency over the construction of § 112(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1685, 42 U.
S. C. § 7412(b)(1)(B), which governs the actions the agency must take with respect to establishing emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. Essentially, the District Court reads the section to require the EPA either to promulgate emission standards for all sources of the pollutant previously identified by the agency or to make a specific finding that the pollutant “is not a hazardous air pollutant”; the agency believes that under the section it may establish standards for some sources but not for others. Applicants seek the unusual relief of a stay from this Court pending appeal to a Court of Appeals. See Atiyeh v. Capps, 449 U. S. 1312, 1313 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).
They have not pointed us to a conflict of authority on the issue decided by the District Court. Under those circumstances I do not think a stay is in order. Even if the Court of Appeals were to affirm the District Court I am by no means certain that four Members of this Court would vote to grant certiorari to review this statutory question.
The applications for stay are accordingly denied.