U.S. Supreme Court

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said.

In this case, Attorney General Brown concludes that existing case-law precedents of the Court do not invalidate Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. But this does not resolve the matter.

In the In re Marriages Cases, the Court held that article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides a right to marry that cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Attorney General Brown argues that in order to invalidate such a fundamental right, the Court must determine that there is a compelling justification to do so. But in the In re Marriage Cases, the court found that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken.

Attorney General Brown believes that same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008 are valid and recognized in California regardless of whether Proposition 8 is upheld.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2008
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500

Attorney General Brown Urges California Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of Proposition 8

SACRAMENTO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and for this matter of widespread concern to be “promptly resolved.”

“The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court.” Attorney General Brown said.

In a set of briefs filed with the Court today, Attorney General Brown wrote that: “review by this Court is necessary to ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California. The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here. There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”

Typically, matters are brought before lower courts before the Supreme Court hears the case. However, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to accept the review directly to bring an early resolution to the matter.

Attorney General Brown opposes a stay on Proposition 8, arguing that it would increase uncertainty related to marriages performed in California. The Attorney General’s brief states that “the public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay, but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised by the petitions.”

Attorney General Brown continues to believe that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court.

Attached are the briefs that were filed today with the Court.

LOS ANGELES--California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced California's plan to sue the U.S. EPA for continuing to “wantonly ignore its duty” to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from ships, aircraft, and construction and agricultural equipment.

“Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel and cause massive greenhouse gas pollution yet President Bush stalls with one bureaucratic dodge after another,” Attorney General Brown said. “Because Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly ignore its duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action.”

Under federal law and the landmark Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to regulate greenhouse gases from a wide range of vehicles including ocean-going vessels, aircraft and agricultural, construction and industrial equipment. Invoking such authority, Attorney General Brown formally petitioned the EPA--in October 2007, December 2007 and January 2008--to initiate appropriate regulatory action.

In the face of Brown’s petitions, the EPA has done nothing but issue a pathetically weak “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” on July 11, 2008. The EPA’s proposal contains hundreds of pages of discussion and facts but never once states that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare--the legal foundation for fashioning regulations. Brown said that ignoring California’s petitions violates the Clean Air Act which requires the agency to adopt standards for greenhouse gases.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is given 180 days to respond with appropriate regulation action. If the agency does not issue timely regulations for aircraft, ocean-going vessels and nonroad engines, California can and will sue the federal government for unreasonable delay. The lawsuit will be based on the following:

* EPA’s failure to make explicit findings that industrial equipment, ships and aircraft emit greenhouse gas pollution that endangers public health or welfare
* EPA’s failure to adopt timely regulations to control such emissions

President Bush blocked EPA’s original plan to make a formal finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare. Recently, congressional investigations have found that White House staff signed off on EPA’s “endangerment finding” in November 2007. Subsequently, White House officials told EPA to cancel the finding.

“If President Bush was serious about America’s dangerous and growing foreign oil dependency, he would forthwith direct EPA to do its job and regulate greenhouse gases,” Attorney General Brown said.

Nonroad engines, ships and aircrafts emit as much greenhouse gases as 270 million cars, more than the entire number of registered vehicles in the United States. The following background information details the massive energy consumption and negative environmental effects of ocean-going vessels, aircraft and nonroad engines.

SHIPS

The world’s relatively small fleet of large ocean-going vessels, about 90,000, emits approximately three percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Ocean-going vessels in total emit more CO2 emissions than any nation in the world except the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, India and Germany. These emissions are projected to increase nearly 75 percent during the next 20 years.

EPA’s own recent proposal states that marine vessels that purchased fuel in the U.S. emitted 84.2 million metric tons of CO2 in 2006, or 3.9 percent of the total U.S. mobile source CO2 emissions.

The United Nations International Maritime Organization has authority under international treaties to establish pollution standards for vessels but has to date failed to adopt controls on greenhouse gas emissions. The IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee recently planned to inventory greenhouse gases by 2009 but made no commitment to regulate such emissions. Attorney General Brown says that ocean-going vessels have a right to innocent passage under international law but that right does not include polluting the air or water near in California.

AIRCRAFT

According EPA data, aircraft contributed three percent of the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions and 12 percent of the transportation sector emissions in 2005. The Federal Aviation Administration expects domestic aircraft emissions to increase 60 percent by 2025.

Aviation’s contribution to global warming is greater than other major greenhouse gas emission sources because aircraft release emissions at high altitudes. For example, when nitrous oxide is emitted at high altitudes it generates greater concentrations of ozone than when it is released at ground-level. Brown says that because aviation injects greenhouse gas pollution at high altitudes—right where these emissions have a heightened negative impact—the EPA must take action to curb these emissions.

There are currently no greenhouse gas emissions controls on aircraft and only limited controls for some conventional pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency, passed a resolution to set international emissions reduction agreements but the organization has taken no additional action to further this goal.

AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

Millions of industrial machines in mines, on farms, and at construction emitted 220 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007—an amount equivalent to the emissions from 40 million cars. Mining and construction equipment accounted for 32 percent of these emissions, followed by agricultural and industrial equipment. According to the California Air Resources Board, there are approximately 17.8 million of these machines and engines in California.

The EPA has refused to regulate emissions from nonroad engines, aircraft and ocean-going vessels despite unassailable evidence of global warming and dangerous foreign oil dependency. Last week the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's issued a report on global warming’s devastating effects which include more frequent and intense hurricanes, heat waves, and flooding. In California, where hydropower comprises approximately 15 percent of in-state energy production, diminishing snowmelt flowing through dams will decrease the potential for hydropower production by up to 30 percent by the end of the century.

Other states, local governments and agencies which joined California today in warning the EPA of an impending lawsuit include Connecticut, Oregon, New York City, the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. National environmental groups filing similar petitions include Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center.

California’s notice of intent to sue the EPA is attached.

WASHINGTON DC—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. went to federal court today to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release a court-mandated determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare. Such a determination of endangerment is the first step towards establishing federal controls on greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

“The EPA said it would take action to regulate greenhouse gases by the end of last year but then broke its word and ignored the Supreme Court’s mandate,” Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA has rejected the Supreme Court’s order, an action which is outrageous and unlawful. We’re taking the EPA to court to force it to do its job.”

In a writ of mandamus filed today in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Brown and seventeen other states and eleven national environmental groups asked for a court order that would force the EPA to release its determination of endangerment within sixty days.

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions after making a formal determination that such pollution threatens public health or welfare. The EPA itself described the Court’s mandate as follows: “...the EPA must determine...whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.”

A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed that the EPA had already made its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review--and sent it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final approval. Brown called EPA’s inaction “a textbook case of unreasonable delay” because the agency already completed its endangerment determination last year and is simply refusing to release it publicly.

“It is makes absolutely no sense for the EPA to say it needs a year-long public comment period before it can obey the Supreme Court,” Brown said. “The EPA has finished its determination and Johnson should keep his promise by releasing the final version immediately.”

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said repeatedly, under oath, that he would comply with the Court’s mandate and issue a determination of endangerment by the end of 2007. Last week, Johnson broke that promise by extending the time period another twelve months until President Bush leaves office.

In February, Brown and seventeen other states asked the EPA why it was delaying in issuing its report. In response, Administrator Johnson backtracked on his earlier promise, stating “the Agency does not have a specific timeline for responding to the remand.” The EPA tried to explain its abrupt change of course by pointing to the recent enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a law which does not change EPA’s duties under the Supreme Court’s decision.

Brown said that the EPA cannot use the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which only improves fuel economy, as an excuse for ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA’s obligation to regulate such emissions is wholly independent from the mandate, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to promote energy efficiency.

Under Johnson, the EPA has also failed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, ocean-going vessels and non-road vehicles and engines. Brown sued the EPA in January after the agency broke forty years of precedent by rejecting California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gases.

Since the beginning of the industrial era, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have reached their highest point in the last half-million years. Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently said “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Nineteen states and local governments joining California in filing today’s legal action include: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia, City of New York, Mayor and City Council for Baltimore.

National and international environmental groups also joining include: Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technological Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group

All of these parties were either petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA, or joined amicus briefs in support.

LOS ANGELES--Tomorrow, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will take legal action to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to obey last year’s Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants subject to regulation.

After the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision--exactly one year ago on April 2, 2007--the EPA promised to begin regulating greenhouse gases by issuing an official determination that such pollutants endanger public health or welfare.

The EPA said it would issue the determination of endangerment by the end of 2007 but then broke its promise last week by extending the time period another twelve months until President Bush is out of office.

A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform exposed the fact that the EPA already completed its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review document--but is refusing to release the final document.

On a conference call tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Attorney General Brown will assert that the EPA’s willful rejection of the Supreme Court’s instruction is “outrageous and unlawful.” Brown will join dozens of states and national environmental groups in taking legal action to stop the EPA from continuing to ignore the Supreme Court.

WHAT:
Press conference call announcing new legal action in the Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA

WHO:
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Chief of Environmental Protection James Milkey
Sierra Club Chief Climate Counsel David Bookbinder
International Center for Technology Assessment Legal Director Joe Mendelson

WHEN:
10:00 a.m. Pacific Wednesday April 2, 2008

WASHINGTON DC—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to “obey the Supreme Court’s landmark decision,” Massachusetts v. EPA, opening a new front in the legal battle for tailpipe greenhouse gas regulations.

“The Artic is melting faster than ever before, yet the EPA stubbornly refuses to do its job,” Attorney General Brown said. “The EPA should obey the Supreme Court’s landmark decision and issue regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollutants without further delay.”

The landmark Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The EPA itself, in a notice last month in the Federal Register, described the Court’s mandate:

“…the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must determine, under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act, whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare.”

Greenhouse gas pollutants are pouring into the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise at an unprecedented rate. Eleven of the 12 warmest years since record keeping began, 150 years ago, have occurred in the past 12 years. In 2006, Arctic sea ice declined by the largest amount ever recorded, losing an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined.

Before the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas pollution, the agency must make a formal determination that such emissions threaten public health or welfare. After the Court’s decision in April 2007, the EPA said it would propose regulations by the end of the year, but it has failed to do so. In a letter sent today by California and 17 other states and local governments, Brown asserted that “the EPA is unreasonably delaying” the procedural steps necessary for issuing regulations.

Brown called upon the EPA to immediately issue a formal conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Brown requested a response, with the agency’s specific intentions, by February 27, 2008.

Today’s letter serves as a notice that states are preparing to go back to court to get the EPA to comply with the Supreme Court's mandate.

Brown said that the EPA cannot use the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which only improves fuel economy, as an excuse for ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA’s obligation to regulate such emissions is wholly independent from the mandate, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to promote energy efficiency.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is also allowed to impose tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions regulations if the state obtains a waiver from the EPA. Brown sued the EPA on January 2, after the agency broke forty years of precedent by denying California’s request, which would have allowed the state to cut tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. It was the first denial since the Clean Air Act was established in 1967.

In rejecting the state’s request, the EPA stated that California failed to demonstrate “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” as required by the Clean Air Act. This statement contradicted forty years of agency practice and ignored the dangerous consequences of global warming to the State of California.

Under the Bush administration, the EPA has also failed to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for ocean-going vessels and aircraft—both major worldwide contributors to global warming.

Global warming threatens California’s coastline, levees, and Sierra mountain snow pack which provides one-third of the state’s drinking water. California’s unique topography and its high human and vehicular population have already caused higher ozone concentrations than other parts of the country. For more information on the impacts of global warming, visit: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/impact.php

Seventeen other states and local governments are joining today’s letter including: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the City Solicitor for the City of Baltimore and the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York.

The states’ letter to the EPA is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO--In response to Supreme Court's decision today in the landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, is a resounding affirmation of California’s actions to address global warming,” stated Attorney General Brown, who represents California as a party in that case.

In finding that the Clean Air Act applies to emission of greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court upheld California’s right to promulgate its landmark regulations limiting those emissions.

“This is an historic moment for California and the country,” said Brown. “The Supreme Court recognized the key role for states in protecting their citizens and their environment.”

The automakers have sued California, challenging the state’s authority to regulate greenhouse case emissions from cars and trucks, and they have challenged ten other states’ actions in adopting the California rules.

Attorney General Brown described today’s ruling as vindication of the state’s regulations, its legal position in support of those regulations, and in pursuing legal remedies in the courts on behalf of the state’s citizens and environment.

“The Supreme Court today has dealt a defeat to General Motors and other auto companies that are attempting to sabotage California’s pioneering controls on greenhouse gas emissions,” Brown said. “It is time for the automakers, the electric power industry, and other large greenhouse gas emitters to join California in leading the world to global warming solutions.”

In addition to Massachusetts v. EPA, Brown represents California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon, an automaker challenge to California’s regulations; Connecticut v. AEP, challenging power plant emissions; California v. GM, challenging automaker emissions; and California v. NHTSA, challenging fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs.