The plaintiffs won, and that's all I am going to pass on about this opinion on an environmental-law issue, which (no offense meant to environmental-law practitioners) is dull enough to serve as a sleep aid for Charlie Sheen.
EPA provides as an example a state proposing a revision to make an existing SIP less stringent, arguing that requiring a FIP when EPA disapproves such a relaxing of the SIP would be irrational. EPA’s point is well taken in a situation where the existing SIP remains adequate to attain the NAAQS. The facts in this case, however, are much different . . . . While it may seem counterintuitive to require EPA to promulgate a FIP when it disapproves a revision seeking to undercut an effective existing SIP, it is entirely logical to require EPA to promulgate a FIP when it disapproves a revision seeking to update what it recognizes are serious deficiencies in an existing SIP.
Dear God. I hope Hosni Mubarak doesn't get ahold of this, because he could subdue the protesters just by reading it over the loudspeakers.
Anyway, my interest is only in the title, which I think qualifies for the Comical Case Names page, if only because of the excellent name of the lead non-profit.
Association of Irritated Residents v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, ___ F.3d ___, No. 09-71383 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011).
Whether they will be any less irritated on remand remains to be seen.
