Description: Federal government's lawsuit challenging California's greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade agreement with the
provincial government of Quebec, Canada.
-
United States v. California
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/22/2021 Order Download Appeal voluntarily dismissed. 04/21/2021 Stipulation Download Stipulation for dismissal filed by the parties. United States Agreed to Dismissal of Appeal in Unsuccessful Trump-Era Challenge to California-Quebec Cap-and-Trade Linkage. The United States, the State of California, and other defendants and intervenor-defendants stipulated and agreed to the voluntary dismissal of the United States’ appeal of a California federal court’s judgment in favor of California and the other defendants in the U.S.’s challenge to the constitutionality of the linkage between California’s greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program and Quebec trading program. -
United States v. California
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/14/2020 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by United States. U.S. Appealed District Court’s Rejection of Challenges to Linkage Between California and Quebec Cap-and-Trade Programs. The United States filed an appeal from the judgment in favor of California and other defendants in the U.S. case challenging agreements linking California’s greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade agreement with the trading program of provincial government of Quebec, Canada. The district court rejected the U.S.’s claims that the linkage violated the Treaty and Compact Clauses and was preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine. 07/17/2020 Memorandum and Order Download Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted and judgment entered in favor of all defendants. Federal Court Rejected U.S.’s Remaining Claim in Challenge to California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California ruled that California’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions was not preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine. First, the court found that the United States failed to identify “a clear and express foreign policy that directly conflicts” with the cap-and-trade program. Second, although the court found that California’s regulations and an agreement linking its cap-and-trade program with Quebec’s program had a “broad purpose” that extends beyond the area of traditional state responsibility, the court concluded that the U.S. failed to show that the cap-and-trade program impermissibly intrudes on the federal government’s foreign affairs power. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the Foreign Affairs Doctrine claim. Since the U.S.’s other claims under the Treaty and Compact Clauses had already been dismissed, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. 06/22/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by state defendants in support of cross-motion for summary judgment. 06/22/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by WCI, Inc. defendants to plaintiff's opposition to defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. 06/08/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by United States in support of its second summary judgment motion and in opposition to defendants' second cross-motion for summary judgment. 05/29/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by United States to ex parte application for order continuing the hearing date for cross-motions for summary judgment. 05/26/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae professors of foreign relations law. 05/26/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by the Nature Conservancy in support of defendants' second motion for summary judgment. 05/26/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by states in support of state defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion. 05/26/2020 Application Download Ex parte application filed by state defendants for order continuing hearing date for summary judgment cross-motions. 05/18/2020 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Cross-motion for summary judgment filed by state defendants. California, Other Parties Said Foreign Affairs Doctrine Did Not Preempt Cap-and-Trade Linkages. California and other defendants filed cross-motions seeking summary judgment against the United States on the U.S.’s claim that California’s linkage of its greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program with Quebec’s is preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine. The defendants asserted that the U.S. had not established any conflict with U.S. foreign policy. In addition, the defendants argued that the scope of field preemption under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine was very narrow and did not apply here and that the U.S.’s “obstacle preemption” argument, even if properly raised, would fail because the U.S. could not establish that the linkage with Quebec’s program interfered with congressional delegation of authority to the President. Western Climate Initiative, Inc. (a nonprofit organization that provides administrative and technical services to any jurisdiction with a cap-and-trade program) and related defendants also contended that the Foreign Affairs Doctrine could not be applied to them. Other parties filed briefs opposing the application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine to preempt the linkage between the cap-and-trade programs, including intervenor-defendant International Emissions Trading Association, as well as professors of foreign relations law, 14 states (led by Oregon), and the Nature Conservancy. 05/18/2020 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Cross-motion for summary judgment filed by WCI, Inc. defendants. 05/18/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by intervenor-defendant International Emissions Trading Association to plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment. 05/18/2020 Opposition Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed by WCI, Inc. defendants' opposition to plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment, joinder in the state defendants' opposition and cross-motions for summary judgment. 05/18/2020 Response Download Response filed by defendants in support of plaintiff's withdrawal of fourth cause of action. 04/20/2020 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Second motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss claim filed by United States. U.S. Sought Summary Judgment on Foreign Affairs Doctrine Claim in Challenge to California-Quebec Greenhouse Gas Agreement. In its lawsuit challenging California’s agreements with Quebec regarding linkages between their greenhouse gas cap-and-trade programs, the United States filed a motion seeking summary judgment motion on its claim that the agreements violated the Foreign Affairs Doctrine. The U.S. argued that the agreements and related arrangements conflicted with and were an obstacle to U.S. foreign policy, including the U.S.’s decision not to participate in the Paris Agreement. The U.S. further contended that even if California’s activities did not conflict with U.S. foreign policy, they concerned an area of foreign affairs over which the federal government had exclusive domain. The United States also sought dismissal of its Foreign Commerce Clause claim, which the U.S. said was largely duplicative of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine claim. 03/12/2020 Memorandum and Order Download Summary judgment granted to California and WCI, Inc. on Compact and Treaty Clause claims. Federal Court Rejected U.S.’s Treaty and Compact Clause Claims in Challenge to Linkage Between California and Quebec Cap-and-Trade Programs. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California ruled that an agreement between California and Quebec concerning the linking of their greenhouse gas cap-and-trade programs did not violate either the Treaty Clause or the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S.’s claims under the foreign affairs doctrine and the foreign Commerce Clause are still pending. Regarding the Treaty Clause, the court concluded that “[b]y any metric, the Agreement between California and Quebec falls short of … consequential agreements” that the Supreme Court has identified as agreements that qualify as treaties such as “treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war,” “mutual government,” the “cession of sovereignty,” and “general commercial privileges.” Regarding the Compact Clause, the court noted that the Supreme Court had limited the clause’s bar on compacts between a state and another state or foreign power to “agreements that encroach upon federal sovereignty.” In this case, the court found that the California-Quebec agreement did not contain indicia of a compact because (1) it “does not require reciprocal action to take effect”; (2) “does not impose a regional limitation”; (3) does not adopt a joint organization or body that exercises regulatory authority; and (4) does not include an “enforceable prohibition on unilateral modification or termination.” The court also concluded that the agreement did not increase California’s power so that it encroached on U.S. supremacy. In addition, it rejected the argument that the Clean Air Act’s explicit authorization of agreements and compacts between states implicitly precludes agreements between states and foreign powers. 03/11/2020 Answer Download Answer filed by WCI, Inc. defendants. 03/11/2020 Answer Download Answer filed by Jared Blumenfeld in his official capacity as Secretary for Environmental Protection. 03/11/2020 Answer Download Answer filed by defendant Jared Blumenfeld, in his official capacity as Secretary for Environmental Protection. 03/11/2020 Answer Download Answer filed by WCI, Inc. defendants. 03/02/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by state defendants in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment. 03/02/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by WCI, Inc. defendants' to plaintiff's opposition to defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. 03/02/2020 Supplement Download Supplemental brief on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by intervenors Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. 03/02/2020 Supplement Download Supplemental brief filed by state defendants in response to court order regarding cross-motions for summary judgment. 03/02/2020 Supplement Download Response filed by United States to court's order for supplemental briefing. 03/02/2020 Supplement Download Supplemental brief filed by WCI, Inc. defendants pursuant to court's February 26, 2020 order. 02/26/2020 Order Download Court issued order requiring parties to provide short supplemental briefs. The court—citing its interest in not resolving the case in a piecemeal fashion—directed the parties to supplement their summary judgment briefing with explanations of their reasons for not moving for summary judgment on the Foreign Affairs Doctrine and Foreign Commerce Clause claims. The parties’ summary judgment motions address only the U.S.’s Treaty Clause and Compact Clause claims. 02/26/2020 Order Download Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction granted with respect to two individual defendants and denied with respect to all other parties. Federal Court Largely Denied Motion to Dismiss Some Defendants from U.S.’s Challenge to California’s Greenhouse Gas Agreement with Canadian Provinces. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California declined to dismiss the Western Climate Initiative, Inc. (WCI) or its statutorily appointed voting board members from the federal government’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s agreement with the governments of Quebec and Ontario related to cap-and-trade programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The court found that the United States adequately alleged that WCI’s actions in implementing the agreement would cause or contribute to the U.S.’s injury. The court further found that the U.S. claims for injunctive relief were properly asserted against the voting board members—the heads of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). The court also declined to dismiss the head of CalEPA in his official capacity as secretary of the agency since CalEPA is the parent agency of CARB, which is delegated authority to implement the cap-and-trade program. The court did dismiss two non-voting board members of WCI from the action. 02/24/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed by United States in support of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. 02/18/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by 14 states as amici curiae in support of state defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Along with Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and International Emissions Trading Association, which intervened in support of the defendants, the following parties moved to file briefs as amici curiae in support of the defendants: 13 professors of foreign relations law; 13 former U.S. diplomats and government officials; the Nature Conservancy; and 14 states. 02/18/2020 Amicus Motion Download Notice of motion and consent motion for leave to file brief filed by amici curiae former U.S. diplomats and government officials. 02/18/2020 Amicus Motion Download Notice of motion and motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by the the Nature Conservancy. 02/14/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae professors of foreign relations law. 02/14/2020 Amicus Motion Download Notice of motion and motion filed by professors of foreign relations law requesting leave to file amici curiae brief. 02/10/2020 Memorandum Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of state defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion. 02/10/2020 Memorandum Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of WCI, Inc. defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, joinder in the state defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and cross-motions for summary judgment. 02/10/2020 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Notice of cross-motion and cross-motion for summary judgment filed by state defendants. 02/10/2020 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Notice of cross-motion and cross-motion for summary judgment filed by WCI, Inc. defendants. 02/10/2020 Opposition Download Intervenors Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council filed opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 02/10/2020 Opposition Download Opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed by International Emissions Trading Association. 02/06/2020 Order Download Court denied ex parte application to modify the hearing date to accommodate defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court denied the defendants’ application to extend the schedule for briefing cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ordered briefing to be completed on March 2, 2020, and a hearing was scheduled for March 9. 02/04/2020 Response Download Response filed by United States to defendants' ex parte application for scheduling order. 02/03/2020 Application Download Ex parte application filed by defendants for scheduling order regarding cross-motions for summary judgment. 02/03/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by WCI, Inc. defendants and defendant Blumenfeld in his official capacity as Secretary for Environmental Protection on their motion to dismiss. 01/27/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by United States to WCI, Inc. defendants and defendant Blumenfeld's motion to dismiss. 01/06/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Notice of motion and motion to dismiss filed by WCI, Inc. defendants and defendant Blumenfeld in his official capacity as Secretary for Environmental Protection. 10/23/2019 Complaint Download Complaint filed. U.S. Sued to Block Implementation of California-Quebec Cooperation on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The United States filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California seeking to bar California from continuing to implement a 2013 agreement with the provincial government of Quebec, Canada pursuant to which California and Quebec work to harmonize their greenhouse gas reporting and cap-and-trade programs. The U.S. contended that the agreement—along with a separate agreement between California and the Western Climate Initiative and certain supporting provisions of California law—violated the Constitution by intruding on federal powers to negotiate international agreements. The complaint alleged that “[a]llowing individual states in the Union to conduct their own foreign policy to advance their own narrow interests is … anathema to our system of government and, if tolerated, would unlawfully enhance state power at the expense of the United States and undermine the United States’ ability to negotiate competitive international agreements.” The U.S. asserted claims under the Treaty Clause, the Compact Clause, the foreign affairs doctrine, and the foreign Commerce Clause.