Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Carol Browner

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that prospective application of the judicial review provision was explicitly required by the statute only for interpretative rules, not the legislative rules at issue in the case
• holding that a statute stating that an agency “shall” act by a certain deadline does not divest that agency’s ability to act unless there is some additional indication in the statute of a congressional intent to bar further action
• noting that prospective application of the judicial review provision was explicitly required by the statute only for interpretative rules, not the legislative rules at issue in the case
• opining that “appellate courts 5. Having dismissed the claims against the generally should not address legal issues United States, the District Court refused that the parties have not developed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction through proper briefing”
• denying petition to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling even though the ruling occurred outside the statutory timeframe because the statutory timeframe does not divest the agency of jurisdiction to act
• ”[T]he SBRE-FA amendment concerning judicial review does not retroactively alter substantive rights, duties or liabilities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).