California Communities Against Toxics v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding vacatur was not warranted, because stopping the project would be \economically disastrous\ as it was \a billion-dollar venture.\
• noting that there vacatur would result in public harms such as community blackouts, state legislation, and economic disaster
• finding that “[shopping construction would also be economically disastrous” because it was a “billion-dollar venture employing 350 workers”
• remanding without vacating because vacating could lead to air pollution, undermining the goals of the Clean Air Act
• finding that the “delay and trouble” vacatur would cause—including potential blackouts from lack of power, possible additional air pollution from generators, and the loss of jobs and economic benefits—were severe enough to warrant remand without vacatur
• remanding without vacating because vacating could lead to air pollution,' undermining the goals of the Clean Air Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).