The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday by the states of Utah and Oklahoma over where cases involving air quality regulations should be heard.
At issue is claims of "forum shopping," when states or environmental groups file litigation in a location perceived as friendly to their point of view. In this case, Utah and Oklahoma want cases to be heard in their respective states. They are challenging a decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to send a case involving air quality regulations to the D.C. Circuit Court.
"The information is unique to Utah. Our topography, our mountains, our air quality, the dynamics of Utah," said Utah Attorney General Derek Brown in an interview with FOX 13 News from Washington D.C. following the arguments.
The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with the issue.
"I mean, gosh, if anything's -- if anything is nationwide in impact, it's got to be air pollution because it travels," said Justice Neil Gorsuch.
"Well, the whole statute's about air pollution. But with respect to the good neighbor provision, EPA made clear that interstate ozone transport is a 'regional scale pollution problem,'" said Mithun Mansinghani, arguing for the states of Oklahoma and Utah.
The "good neighbor" provision involves federal regulations on air pollution generated in one state that travels downwind to another state, impacting their air quality.
"Unfortunately, the public should understand this is yet the latest attempt by the state to evade responsibility and evade government regulations that impact all of us," said Dr. Brian Moench, the president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment.
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment has legal cases pending over air quality issues, including one they are involved in before the U.S. Supreme Court surrounding the Uinta Basin Railway. Dr. Moench said he was optimistic based on the line of questioning by the justices.
"This time they may make a ruling that actually protects the ability of groups like ours to go to court in a way the state of Utah is trying to erode," he said.
Utah's attorney general countered that this should not be a D.C.-centric thing.
"We, of course, are arguing that that’s not the point," Brown said. "That the Congress intended the EPA to look at the individual states, to look at what makes them different and individualized and we believe that’s something the Court should take into consideration."
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the fall.
