Neomi Rao Looks at Finality of EPA Rule-making in DC Circuit Debut
Rao made her first appearance after filling a vacancy left by Brett Kavanaugh's elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
May 03, 2019 at 02:07 PM
3 minute read
Judge Neomi Rao was an engaged and active questioner on the bench Friday as she made her debut as a newly minted jurist on Washington's federal appeals court.
The former Trump administration regulatory czar sat upright and occasionally leaned forward during her first sitting, appearing with a laptop and a binder of papers. Rao was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Donald Trump and confirmed in March, filling the vacancy left behind by Brett Kavanaugh's elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rao, along with Judges David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan, heard arguments in two appeals. The first related to a criminal re-sentencing case, and the second was a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's decision in April 2018 to no longer enforce part of an Obama-era regulation that limited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a powerful greenhouse gas.
The attorneys for an environmental group and states challenging the EPA argued Friday that the agency's decision amounted to a final agency action, which would require providing notice and time for public comment before its implementation. Lawyers for the agency and intervenor Mexichem Fluor contended it was interim guidance. They said the agency's move was based on its interpretation of a D.C. Circuit ruling in 2017 that invalidated a different part of the Obama-era rule.
As the panel grappled with how “final” the EPA's move was, Rao pointed out that court precedent guides judges to look also at the language of agency guidance itself. She asked Peter DeMarco, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, what he made of the EPA's wording in its April 2018 document, which said it was providing guidance “in the near-term.” DeMarco argued those words didn't “defeat” the finality of the agency's move itself.
Rao had questions for Justice Department lawyers, too, who represented the EPA and fielded tough questioning from Tatel and Srinivasan. Rao asked Benjamin Carlisle if it was the EPA's “view” that the D.C. Circuit's ruling in 2017 had effectively invalidated the entirety of the previous agency's policy or if the agency was taking the position that, given the ambiguities in the ruling, it was simply offering its interpretation in the interim. Carlisle replied it was both.
Rao's first question came in USA v. Mark Smith, where a man is appealing a district judge's denial to reconsider his sentence. The original sentence for Smith, who was convicted on drug distribution charges, was based on a guideline range that the sentencing commission later reduced. Sandra Roland, an assistant public defender, argued Friday that the trial court committed “procedural error” in declining to reconsider his sentence.
Rao only asked one question, after both Tatel and Srinivisan weighed in, asking Roland if she was suggesting that any sentence above the guideline range would be unreasonable. Roland said she believed it was unreasonable in this case, though not in all instances.
Before arguments began, Tatel offered brief introductory remarks, welcomed his “newest colleague” to the bench and wished her a “long and successful” tenure.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250