Description: Lawsuit challenging President Trump's Executive Order 13771 on "“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” and implementing guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget.
California v. Trump
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/04/2019 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Alleging Climate Change Injuries, Three States Launched Challenge to Trump’s “Reducing Regulation” Executive Order. California, Oregon, and Minnesota filed a new lawsuit challenging President Trump’s Executive Order 13771 on “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” as well as guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget to assist agencies in implementing the executive order. The executive order includes, among other directives, a “two-for-one” requirement that agencies repeal at least two regulations to offset each new regulation. In their lawsuit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the three states alleged that the executive order had been a cause of the Trump administration’s failure to finalize regulations proposed during the Obama administration, including rules proposed to address energy conservation and greenhouse gas emissions. The states’ complaint also included allegations detailing climate change-related impacts the states were suffering. The states said that although they had taken significant measures to address their own greenhouse gas emissions, action on a nationwide scale was necessary. They cited several rulemaking processes allegedly affected by the order, including the failure to implement municipal solid waste landfill emission guidelines, the delay and suspension of BLM’s methane waste rule, the repeal of the Federal Highway Administration’s Greenhouse Gas Performance Measure, and the failure to finalize proposed energy efficiency standards for residential conventional cooking products. The complaint alleged violations of the separation of powers doctrine and Take Care Clause, asserted that President Trump and other defendants had acted outside the scope of their authority, and contended that the agency defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act.