Federal law dictates that challenges to restrictions can only be disputed in an appeals court, as ruled by the judge.
According to the EPCA, a challenger to a regulation can only “file a petition” with a U.S. appeals court.
Therefore, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk determined that district courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter.
He sided with government attorneys who argued that the law excludes district court jurisdiction.
Related Stories
The Competitive Enterprise Institute contended that appellate jurisdiction was optional, not obligatory.
While it is customary for district courts to review agency decisions, this presumption “disappears ‘when there is a specific statutory grant of jurisdiction to the court of appeals,’” Kacsmaryk cited from an appeals court ruling in a different case.
Although some statutes allow both district and appeals courts to review concurrently, the EPCA does not provide for this, he later added.
“When the EPCA grants jurisdiction to the district court, it does so for matters suitable for that venue—specifically, determining if a state or local government complied with EPCA requirements,” the judge explained. “However, the Plaintiffs are challenging the underlying agency decisions themselves, which, as indicated by the aforementioned authorities, are more appropriate for appellate review within this limited EPCA context.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the DOE did not offer any comments in response to requests.
The new regulations introduced stricter water efficiency standards. For instance, a standard dishwasher is now limited to using no more than 3.3 gallons of water per cycle.
There is still a possibility that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit might rule in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
