Supreme Court Nixes Calif. Antismog Rule

[RoyGBiv]

Imagine that, majority opinion written by Scalia.

Supreme Court Nixes Calif. Antismog Rule

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a Southern California agency may have gone too far in imposing its own antismog rules for city buses, airport shuttles and other vehicles.

Justices, on a 8-1 vote, sided with oil companies and diesel engine manufacturers who claimed that local pollution rules conflict with national standards.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the tougher local rules, but the decision was voided by the high court. The Supreme Court sent the case back to California to consider the issues.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said that the emissions rules appear to blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/w/1154/4-28-2004/20040428083011_098.html

[hatrack]

1. Oh, thank GOD!!!

I just KNEW those antismog laws in S California were just WAY to strict!! Thank you, Justice Scalia! Thank you, Justice Rehnquist!

[happyslug]

2. Here is the Decision

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28apr20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1343.pdf

[happyslug]

3. I have read the Opinion

And as I feared, Scalia is right. You have to remember Scalia is one of the few Appellant Judges who understand Administrative and Regulatory law, most Judges do not. In this case he clearly sets forth the argument that regulations must follow statutes. In this case the Statute is the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA clearly PROHIBITS the states from issuing regulations stricter than the requirements set forth under the CAA. California tried to get around that by saying this was NOT a regulation on Selling of Vehicles (Which both sides agreed was prohibited if in excess of the CAA) but the PURCHASING of Vehicles.

Scalia correctly called this a difference without any basis in reality. A person can not SELL something unless someone can BUY it. Thus a Statute as to what one can sell is a Statute on what one can buy. Under the CAA the California could NOT impose the regulation set forth by California as to the SALE of Vehicles and therefore California could not get around that ban by making the restriction as to what someone could BUY.

It is a very logical ruling, and one I can support.

The most interesting part is the last part of Scalia's opinion, he clearly states that his decision is a narrow one, that the state can not impose on its residents Vehicle Restrictions in excess of the CAA BUT RESERVED FOR ANOTHER CASE IF THE STATE COULD MAKE SUCH A REQUIREMENT FOR ITS OWN INTERNAL USE.

What this means is that while California may not be able to make it as a general rule, it may be able to do it as part of California's right to spend its money as it see fit. Thus California may be able to do the regulations but only to its own vehicles (and under prior Decision what is the "state" is wider than the state government, i.e. may include the various groups covered by the regulation but as state entities not as residents of California.

What I am saying this fight is NOT over yet, most of the Regulation may very well be implemented as an internal purchasing decision of the State of California instead of a general Rule for the residents of California.

[AbsolutMauser]

4. My sentiments exactly

There is nothing in the decision that smacks of any sort of disregard for the environment. It's merely a reflection of preemption of state authority under environmental regulations.

A more appropriate course of action would be for CA to do more to meet CAA and other requirements set forth by the EPA, which it currently isn't doing. Several of the largest CA cities are the most polluted in the country.

~AbM