Petitioners suing EPA on global warming may want to surrender now and save the legal fees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revealed yesterday the three judges who will weigh the four rules, including the so-called “endangerment finding” that concluded carbon emissions were harmful and therefore needed to be regulated (E&ENews PM, Nov. 2).
The judges are Chief Judge David Sentelle, a conservative appointed by President Reagan, and two Clinton appointees: Judge Judith Rogers and Judge David Tatel.
All three had some involvement when the court tackled Massachusetts v. EPA, the case that — once it went up to the Supreme Court — ultimately gave EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions.
Lawyers familiar with the litigation over the rules say the panel probably favors EPA based on each judge’s record in environmental cases and regulatory cases in general.
“Bad news for petitioners,” said one lawyer involved in the litigation within hours of the announcement.
While Sentelle might be responsive to the petitioners’ arguments, Tatel and Rogers are less likely to be, even though they have shown a willingness to rule against agencies in the past, court-watchers agree.
Tatel “is a brilliant and moderate-liberal judge, while Rogers “has tended to be sympathetic to environmental claims,” another lawyer familiar with the litigation said.
As we reported last December, Tatel has already ruled against the petitioners in this litigation.
Rather than spending millions on futile litigation, the petitioners ought to sink every dime (and more) into the 2012 election to get rid of Obama.