A coalition of liberal state attorneys general opposing the Trump administration’s rollback of environmental regulations expressed confidence on Tuesday that they would emerge victorious in court.
“We are resolute with our colleagues that we will fight tooth and nail to stop reckless activity by Secretaries Zinke and Pruitt, who not only fail to act as stewards, but joyride around the country on first class flights consulting with folks on the other sides of these issues and fail to stand up for the American people,” said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, referring to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s frequent use of first class travel.
Frosh, a Democrat, on Tuesday participated in a briefing for reporters with colleagues on the sidelines of the National Association of Attorneys General 2018 Winter Meeting in Washington.
He was joined by fellow Democratic state attorneys general Xavier Becerra of California, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, and Karl Racine of Washington D.C.
These attorneys general have been at the forefront of an organized effort to combat President Trump’s push to undo the Obama administration’s legacy, especially challenging moves related to energy and the environment.
The State Energy & Environment Impact Center published a report Tuesday saying the top lawyers in mostly liberal states have taken at least 80 actions in the past year to challenge the Trump administration’s rollback of environmental laws.
The coalition launched in August 2017 as a way to organize the actions of state attorneys general who are eager to counter the Trump administration’s aggressive environmental and energy agenda.
“The reason we have been collaborating is because this administration is unique in our history in that it doesn’t respect the rule of law, they don’t believe in science, and most important, they don’t believe they have a duty to stewardship over natural resources and public lands,” Frosh said. “That has resulted in series of actions that are flat out illegal.”
The attorneys general have been active in the courts, suing the Trump administration for actions including delaying the Waters of the United States rule, eliminating a rule to limit methane emissions, missing a deadline to implement standards for controlling smog-forming pollution, and suspending a requirement that states track on-road greenhouse gas emissions.
Some of these have already been successful.
In July, a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration from eliminating an Environmental Protection Agency rule limiting methane emissions from oil and natural gas wells.
Last week, a federal court ruled the Trump administration must enforce a different Obama-era rule intended to cut methane emissions from natural gas drilling on public land.
In a fiery ruling, Judge William Orrick granted a preliminary injunction against the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, stating the Trump administration’s attempt at delaying the methane rule was “untethered to evidence.”
Also this month, a federal court ruled the Trump administration must implement Obama-era energy efficiency regulations that it had delayed making official.
The Trump administration has reversed course on plans to roll back environmental regulations at least 10 times in response to a court decision or lawsuit, according to Politico.
In addition to filing high-profile lawsuits, the attorneys general have submitted public comments and written letters opposing Trump administration actions before they become official, threatening to take legal action.
The effort by liberal attorneys general resembles a similar pushback by leading Republican state lawyers who coalesced to challenge the Obama administration’s use of executive action on issues including energy and environment, immigration, and healthcare.
Indeed, Pruitt, as Oklahoma’s attorney general, was a leader in that campaign, suing the EPA more than a dozen times, challenging the agency’s authority to regulate toxic mercury pollution, smog, carbon emissions from power plants and wetland and waterways.
The Democratic attorneys general acknowledge their approach takes cues from the Republican playbook, but they say their effort is different.
While Democratic lawyers, like their Republican counterparts, disagree with the opposing administration’s policies, they say the Trump administration has not followed proper legal procedures and laws to unwind regulations, and has failed to justify their actions with science-based facts.
The attorneys general, as plaintiffs in lawsuits, frequently accuse the Trump administration of flouting the Administrative Procedures Act, by short-circuiting the public comment process to delay implementation of Obama-era rules.
“What the APA is about is making the government show its homework,” said Racine, the attorney general from Washington D.C. “It’s about data and showing the rationale for its conclusion. They are not interested and afraid of the data. That is why they are acting in an arbitrary and capricious way. We welcome their gradual embrace of the process because we would love to fight on what the data shows.”
As an example, the attorneys general reference how Zinke granted a waiver to Florida exempting federal waters off its shores from the administration’s massive offshore oil and gas drilling plan. Zinke, in January, announced on Twitter he had removed Florida from the plan shortly after meeting with the state’s Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, who opposes drilling. He made that decision without holding public hearings or providing a scientific rationale.
Zinke has since met with other coastal state leaders opposing the plan, but has not yet granted similar exemptions.
“If someone can explain to me how his [Zinke’s] proposal for Florida is science and process-based, I am waiting to hear and see how it applies to California,” Becerra said.
Added Healy, who said her coast supports the third-largest fishing economy in the country, and worries about oil spills: “We would hope the administration would have more respect for the rule of law, but until they do, we will continue to see them in court.”
The liberal attorneys general concede the Trump administration, stopped by the courts from taking certain actions, is improving its processes and is engaged in normal rule-making procedures as it, for example, seeks to repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan.
But they are confident courts will continue be on their side.
“If they [the Trump administration] improve, it requires us to do more work, but at the end of day, if it’s science-based and fact-based, I believe we have the upper hand on that,” Becerra said.
