Catawba County v. 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.

• holding that an agency memorandum that “explain[ed] the process [the] EPA suggests for states to follow” and “merely reiterate[d] the statutory requirements” was nonbinding and not final
• explaining that ambiguity in the statutory text “suggest[s] a congressional intent to leave unanswered questions to an agency’s discretion and expertise”
• noting that agencies “have an obligation to deal with newly acquired evidence in some reasonable fashion”
• noting that section 107(d) does not define “nearby,” and that it is “the kind[ ] of word[ ] that suggests] a congressional intent to leave unanswered questions to an agency’s discretion and expertise”
• finding that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously where the agency’s “rhetorical revision of its characterization” of data “[was] not justified by any change in the underlying data”
• noting that section 107(d) does not define “nearby,” and that it is “the kind[] of word[] that suggest[s] a congressional intent to leave unanswered questions to an agency’s discretion and expertise”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).