Questions Presented
1. Whether the engine manufacturers have standing under Article III because they demonstrated that E15 will cause them injury in fact.
2. Whether prudential standing is non-jurisdictional and therefore can be waived by a government agency's (here, EPA's) failure to raise it.
3. Whether, in assessing a regulated entity's Article III standing to challenge regulatory action, an apparent "option" to comply with a statutory scheme should be viewed as coercive if use of the "option" is practically required.
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
June 24, 2013
U.S. Chamber urges review of D.C. Circuit decision, which would dramatically restrict businesses' access to federal courts
March 29, 2013
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse a decision by the D.C. Circuit on Article III standing, which threatens to erode effective judicial review of agency regulation. NCLC argued in its amicus brief that agency review in the D.C. Circuit is critical because the D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over many agency appeals, and is the preferred court for resolution of many cases appealed from agencies to the federal courts of appeals. Additionally, NCLC argued that the D.C. Circuit's decision on prudential standing also warrants review because it would allow resolution of a circuit conflict on whether prudential standing is jurisdictional and would provide clarification of the proper scope and use of prudential standing.
Case Documents
- NCLC amicus brief -- Grocery Manu. Assoc. v. EPA (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Growth Energy Brief in Opposition to Cert. Petition -- Grocery Manufacturers Association v. EPA (U.S Supreme Court).pdf
- Growth Energy Certificatesof Serviceand Compliance Grocery Manufacturers Associationv EPA U S Supreme Court