Divine Right of EPA: Agency says it’s above the law on human testing

EPA tells the federal court hearing the illegal human testing suit that the agency answers to nothing and no one — i.e., no law and no judge.

Check out this passage from EPA’s memo in support of its motion to dismiss our claim:

D. EPA’s Decision to Study PM2.5 with Human Participants Is a Decision Committed to Agency Discretion by Law.

Even if some element of EPA’s program of controlled human exposures studies involving PM2.5 could be considered a final agency action, Plaintiff’s claim still must be dismissed because EPA’s decision regarding what studies it chooses to conduct is committed to agency
discretion by law and, therefore, is not subject to review under the [Administrative Procedures Act (APA)]. See 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2). The APA bars judicial review of discretionary agency action where the statute “is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985).

Here, Congress directed EPA to study the causes and effects of air pollution. 42 U.S.C. § 7403. Nothing in the [Clean Air Act (CAA)] provides a meaningful standard” to evaluate what air pollution EPA chooses to study or how. To the contrary, the CAA gives EPA broad discretion in the subject matter of its research program. The only CAA provision applying to EPA’s research is CAA Section 103, 42 U.S.C. § 7403, where Congress broadly mandated that EPA study the health effects of air pollution. But no CAA provision tells EPA what air pollutants to study, with the exception of ozone and wood smoke. 42 U.S.C. § 7403(c)(3), (d)(1). Nor does it provide any standard or direction for how EPA must decide what to study or not, when to conduct studies, what kinds of studies to conduct, how to set and when to shift research priorities. The specific methods for EPA’s research are likewise not specified, i.e., whether EPA involves human participants in its research; although, as mentioned above, the involvement of human participants was known to Congress when debating the CAA. Congress prescribed certain timelines for the prioritization of environmental health assessments of hazardous air pollutants, id. §7403(d)(2)(B)-(C), but did not address any of the issues involved in developing and implementing a research program for any other air pollutant.

Deciding what research program to pursue and how to pursue it “involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [the Agency’s] expertise.” Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831. EPA must determine whether its resources are best spent in the study of certain types of pollutants, whether such studies will be fruitful, and whether such studies best fit with the Agency’s statutory mandates. Because “no judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and when [EPA] should exercise its discretion” in deciding what research to undertake, EPA’s decision to study the health effects of PM2.5 using controlled human exposure studies was a decision committed to EPA’s discretion and immune from review under the APA. Id. at 830… [Emphasis added]

But in the August 2001 Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Grimes et al. v. Kennedy Krieger Institute (a case involving EPA-funded study of children intentionally exposed to lead paint), the Court stated:

It is clear to this Court that the scientific and medical communities cannot be permitted to assume sole authority to determine ultimately what is right and appropriate in respect to research projects involving young children free of the limitations and consequences of the application of Maryland law.[Emphasis added]

9 responses to “Divine Right of EPA: Agency says it’s above the law on human testing

  1. Maybe I’m confused, but I thought this case was not about agency authority to act, but the lack of action to protect their subjects (their gross negligence in harming their human guinee pigs)?

  2. Boggles my mind… I didn’t think the APA gave them immunity from acts of gross negligence? If it does, they are essentially a law unto themselves.

  3. Over in the Old World, Führer Adolf and Uncle Joe held the same views about treating humans. Please wake up United States! You once were the last bulwark against tyranny. You defeated those two tyrants with courage and righteousness, the first one in open war and the regime of the second one with President Raegan’s words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” 35 years after Uncle Joe was gone. Now people like those in EPA are helping to tear down the greatest nation on Earth with their inhuman Ubermensch complex. Stop dissecting paragraphs with them and throw them out before it is too late. Beware that every great regime in the world that has succumbed has done so starting with internal decay and not primarily because of external threat. Look at how the whole Eastern bloc fell apart, that one to the better. If the same thing happens in the US it would mean the end of the free world. Mighty Europe is quarreling about the shape of cucumbers and the earmarking of cows, so we won’t have time to come and save you like you came to save us!

  4. Since the law didn’t explicitly forbid our decision we are not subject to any other laws. What a defense! Now, want to take bets on whether the judge sides with the EPA or thinks they may be subject to other laws?

  5. The EPA keeps making it ever more difficult to avoid a Godwin’s Law situation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    • Westchester Bill

      Johan’s reference to Nazi experiments is apt. That is when the world established that certain human experiments are absolutely wrong.

      The huff and puff experiments on behalf of the EPA are not close to Nazi level. But if they are not, then the benefit estimates for EPA regulation are grossly inflated and illegal.

      Actually, that is Mr. Milloy’s point.

  6. Why isn’t this simply a lawsuit by the participants of the study against the EPA and it’s agents for Battery?

  7. Like all tyrants it would appear the EPA believes the end justifies the means.

    Many of my greeny acquaintances also think the same way.

    I keep pointing out to them the similarities with Adolph, Joe and Pol, but my words just seems to go in one ear and out the other.

    Frightening really.

  8. I would refer the idiot Judge to the Nuremberg Trials and the subsequent international laws banning experiments on human without their free and willing consent.
    Secondly, I would remind him of Common Law; It is a crime to harm or injure anyone, cause loss or damage to their property, to act dishonestly in our dealings, and to act in mischief.
    Using children as lab rats, is a crime against humanity, and those that allow the perpetrators to hide behind the legislation, not law,, are vermin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s