In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 23 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule to limit the 100-foot no spray zone down to 23-feet gave rise to an emergency hearing on December 23 at 5 pm. Inner City Press covered it.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman held the hearing, and asked many questions, including about the impact of the change of U.S. Administration on January 20. 

 He did not decide, at the end of an hour and a half, on the request for a temporary restraining order. 

 Instead, Judge Liman said he will rule on it before December 29. He asked the parties if they wanted to submit more on "the 705 issue." Both said yes.

So, letters were said due at 5 pm on Saturday, December 26.

Now as of 5:10 pm on December 26, in the docket there is no letter (yet?) from plaintiffs, but this in the EPA's / DOJ's 3-page filing: "Dear Judge Liman: This Office represents defendants (together, “EPA”) in this matter. I write respectfully in response to the Court’s request at argument on December 23, 2020, for briefing on the application of the stay provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 705. As stated in EPA’s brief, a request by plaintiffs for a court order to delay implementation of a rule under 5 U.S.C. § 705 is governed by the same standards as the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 30 (“EPA Br.”) at 10 (citing New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., — F. Supp. 3d. —, No. 20 Civ. 4260 (JGK), 2020 WL 4581595, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2020)). It has long been the law of the Second Circuit that stays of administrative action are governed by these requirements....Plaintiffs have not established that nationwide and rule-wide relief is necessary to remedy the harms they allege. See EPA Br. at 29-30. If the Court concludes that some type of equitable relief is appropriate, that relief should be tailored to affect only (1) the harms that Plaintiffs can establish specifically as to themselves or their members, and (2) the portions of EPA’s 2020 Rule as to which Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood both of success on the merits and of irreparable harm absent equitable relief. See New York, 969 F.3d at 88; Eastern Air Lines, 261 F.2d at 830. Plaintiffs do not challenge several aspects of the rule, see EPA Br. at 9 n.2, which should not be enjoined or stayed, and the Court should also decline to enjoin all discrete portions of the Rule as to which Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden."

The case is Rural & Migrant Ministry et al v. Andrew Wheeler et al., 20-cv-10645 (Liman)

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com