United States Steel Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Republic Steel Corporation 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, notwithstanding the statutory deadlines, EPA should have complied with the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act
• concluding that the agency “failed to show strong enough reasons to invoke” the good cause exception
• holding that the “same guidance that was accomplished by the [agency’s] procedures could have been accomplished by issuing a proposed [rule] . . . followed by final promulgation after notice and comment”
• holding, in effect, that EPA must follow APA procedures, even if violation of statutory deadlines results
• reasoning that failure to provide pre-promulgation notice and comment was prejudicial despite a post-promulgation opportunity for comment
• declining to find that agency error was harmless where “the Agency’s error plainly affected the procedure used, and we [could not] assume that there was no prejudice to petitioners”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).