Raymond Proffitt Foundation 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 that statutory framework “enable[d]” the court “to infer a reasonable time frame within which” an agency must act
• stating that “[e]xpress deadlines in the [Clean Air Act] typically create nondiscretionary duties to act”
• “[T]he court concludes that a nineteen-month delay in preparing and publishing proposed regulations is not fulfilling a public duty promptly”
• “In this situation, Congress has stated that the Administrator—and nobody else—must promptly prepare and promulgate an acceptable water quality standard”
• “Once the EPA has disapproved the state standard, the ball is in the EPA’s court. Nothing in the [CWA] authorizes the EPA to defer to the state or put off its obligation” to ensure a current standard is in place
• providing three reasons not to follow the same case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).