7 ms·
> Inhance challenged the EPA’s action, arguing that the EPA improperly sought to take action against the company under a section of TSCA dealing with new uses o
by t-3 3y ago
> Inhance challenged the EPA’s action, arguing that the EPA improperly sought to take action against the company under a section of TSCA dealing with new uses of chemicals, and that Inhance’s process did not constitute a new use.
We need legislation to ban these chemicals outright so that companies can't pull out these kinds of arguments to keep poisoning our food and the environment.
- Dalewyn 3y agoThere already is legislation for that, the court is ordering EPA to do the right thing and use it instead of trying to be lazy and possibly abusive. See my previous comments on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39875212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39875212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39875156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39875156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39876314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39876314
- yohannparis 3y agoTo be fair what kind of judge in their right mind will be accepting this legislation on a technical legal issue; when the outcome and intent are identical and this will just create a waste of time and money on all parties involved?
- causi 3y agoAny of them? The entire body of the law is based on legal technicalities. Judges don't get to decide "what they really meant it to say" when applying the law.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoDetermining legislation's intent is a core function of every appellate court.
- giantg2 3y agoYeah, but you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit. There are precedents supporting that so that laws don't violate strict construction and lenity. That's doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I've seen laws that explicitly call out "reasonable" in them and the courts decide to apply strict liability instead of a reasonable standard, just to make their job easier (increase convictions).
- tiahura 3y agoI was in court on a giant mixed docket with name changes to murder indictments. One of the cases was a paternity action involving the state’s new paternity statute. There was argument over how to interpret the statute and one of the attorneys tried buffaloing the judge with “Well actually judge, I’m on the committee that drafted the bill and our intent,” The judge cut him off and retorted that he didn’t care what anyone intended, he was going to go by what the statute actually said. I made a mental note to never argue legislative intent in that court.
- singleshot_ 3y agoThe judge did not care what the lawyer had to say because it is improper for a lawyer to testify.
- tiahura 3y agoHe wasn’t testifying, he was arguing. If wasn’t an evidentiary hearing.
- freejazz 3y agoAnd he has no place to state the intent of the committee based upon his own experiences, because it's not an evidentiary hearing
- singleshot_ 3y agoIf it was not an evidentiary hearing, then there were two reasons the attorney’s testimony was disallowed.
- lazide 3y agoExcept it literally is - both the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law are equally important under the American (and English!) legal systems and most interesting precedent is due to ‘edge cases’. It’s impossible to write any law which covers every scenario and is not either overbroad (penalizes actually desirable or ‘ok’ behavior in some cases), not being possible to get around for bad behavior, or so vague it heavily restricts desired behavior. Hell, look at the legal battles and drama around murder trials or corporate malfeasance for clear examples. And those are the ones where the bad actors were so clearly being bad that professionals felt they could nail them to the wall in court. Also, as the old saw goes - ‘if the letter of the law is not in your favor, argue the intent. If the intent of the law is not in your favor, argue the facts. If neither the letter nor the intent of the law is in your favor, pound the table.’ Carl Sandburg perhaps? For example - did someone commit first degree murder or something else (manslaughter, second degree murder?), if they intentionally laid in wait and shot someone they thought was person A - but it was actually person B, who looked similar but they actually didn’t know at all. After all, they didn’t intentionally commit premeditated murder against person B did they? But they did definitely premeditate something that became a murder! So was this negligent homicide in fact (they accidentally killed simeone who wasn’t their target due to negligent behavior), or first degree murder (intent) because they intentionally murdered a human being with premeditation - though it was actually an accident they killed that particular human being, and they had no premeditation or intent to kill that particular human?
- vundercind 3y agoThere was a post with very good “let’s see what the law actually says…” analysis in the last thread we had. TL;DR there’s definitely room to dispute whether this decision was merely “calling balls and strikes” based on the meaning of the law or kinda a damn stretch.
- freedomben 3y ago> To be fair what kind of judge in their right mind will be accepting this legislation on a technical legal issue; A good judge who recognizes their intended role in the system. They are there to interpret the law and apply them, not to create them. That sometimes leads to situations like this where the outcome is silly, but that's the fault of the system, not the judge. If we decide it's worth letting unelected and mostly unaccountable dictators write laws, then we could fix this particular problem. IMHO it's not worth it
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- treflop 3y agoIn a small organization like a startup or non-profit, efficiency is more important. In a long running country, stability and longevity is preferred, so strict absolute adherence to process is critical. And you can’t have both.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoFifth circuit court gonna fifth circle court. If they ruled that the sky is blue I would step outside just to make sure.
- alexsereno 3y agoThis exactly, the 5th has the wildest and most twisted rulings to the point even the current Supreme Court has slapped a few down. Any reasonable person should be skeptical.
- ImJamal 3y agoFor anybody interested the 5th isn't the worst court. Here is a summary https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present) https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...
- alexsereno 3y agoWell judging how bad a court is by how many times this Supreme Court reverses it isn’t the best metric, that would require the SC to be a fair and reasonable actor
- ImJamal 3y agoYou were the one who brought up that the rulings of the 5th were slapped down as some sort of argument about the quality of their rulings.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoThe point was that SCOTUS is heavily partisan and still finds errors even they couldn't stomach. This was obvious.
- alexsereno 3y agoSorry for the confusion there, but I bought that up as a point that their rulings have been so bad that even the current, extremely partial SC, has been forced by the politics of the situation to slap down their rulings. It’s as if your own friends tell you you’ve gone a bit too far.
- rayiner 3y agoI think we should ban PFAS. But it’s important to understand that Inhance is also relying on a rule that was deliberately incorporated into the law we have, decades ago, for good reasons. The law makes a distinction between new uses, which require certain notice to the EPA, and existing uses. The idea is that the EPA can be more aggressive with a new thing that isn’t being used yet, than an existing thing that people are relying on. That balance was written into the law. The environmental laws are full of these frameworks that force the EPA to make different trade offs. They’re not loopholes for industry, they’re the reality of balancing costs and benefits in a country where voters will throw you out of office if gas goes above $4/gallon. You’ll never get a law that says “EPA can ban anything it wants, costs be damned.” Inhance has been using this same fluorination process for 40 years. The EPA itself has repeatedly told companies doing flourination they’re not covered by PFA orders. The EPA changed its mind based on new science, for probably reasonable reasons. But it’s entirely fair to make it go through the processes in the law for banning a longstanding use, instead of trying to use its authority over new uses to get at the same thing.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoCan the government also pursue Inhance for the cost of damages incurred by the continued use of PFAS based on new science? Or do we all have to collectively eat the cost of harm because of the “it’s not fair to Inhance to immediately ban it” legal process? Certainly, the EPA should have to work its process from a due process perspective, but private industry should not be permitted to harm based on new science without a cost burden. Make them put a bond up, calculated by the estimated cost of the harm burden between now and when a final decision is made.
- overstay8930 3y ago> Can the government also pursue Inhance for the cost of damages incurred by the continued use of PFAS based on new science? That's up to a judge, and if necessary, the supreme court. Lotta people don't give enough credit to a system that has been around longer than most others in the world. There's a reason why everyone bets on the USA, there are contingencies for contingencies for contingencies. If it's important enough it will get done. On the flip side, imagine if a crony in the EPA could arbitrarily ban products from companies that didn't donate enough to a certain political party.
- ajross 3y ago> We need legislation We thought we had it, though. The whole idea behind the EPA's charter is that it's empowered to regulate harmful materials for the benefit of public health and the environment. This is a technicality (letter, not spirit) legal argument the court is making: the chemicals in question have a long history in industry, because when they were introduced we didn't know they were bad. Now we do, and the EPA banned them. But no, say the clever supervillains on the Fifth Circuit: the specific rule under which the EPA issued the ban was intended for new processes, not old ones. So they have to issue a different regulation under a different statute. Which they totally have the legal power to do, but because they didn't do it exactly right the court says the whole ban is ejected and we can go right back to making poison. A reasonable court would have directed the EPA to correct its process and given it a reasonable deadline, but left the ban in place for obvious reasons. But... yeah, this is the fifth circuit.
- gigatexal 3y agoAnd if the Supreme Court screws us with the chevron doctrine we are screwed.
- badwolf 3y agoSaw the headline and immediately thought "more 5th circuit bullshit again?" and was not wrong. Ugh.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago>A reasonable court would have directed the EPA to correct its process and given it a reasonable deadline, but left the ban in place Since when can the court tell the executive or legislative branches what to do beyond "you must do this according to the law" and "you may not do this according to the law?" I have seen judges say in their opinion eg. for legislative issues things like "had congress written x law like this it would be constitutional" Which is clearly meant to help legislators. But I don't think the court can say "there is no law allowing the government to do this, but since that is what you meant/that is what is good we will allow it."
- rincebrain 3y ago
- downrightmike 3y agoWhat constitutes new? New knowledge? or can we construe that PFAS are a New product as they weren't identified earlier. If we have to get pedantic, in these cases we should, because that is what the law intends.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y agoFrom the ruling: >Inhance asserts that “new” means “having recently come into existence,” or “not previously existing.” >the EPA argues that a “significant new use” is any use “not previously known to the EPA.”[0] Lots of commenters seem outraged by the court's decision here but to me EPA's claim is outrageous. [0] https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_22_24-Fifth-Circuit-Opinion.pdf https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_22_24-Fifth-Ci...
- Dalewyn 3y agoBy the EPA's own definition, as cited in the ruling: Any uses that do not have an ongoing use as of and after 2015. >In response to growing concerns about PFAS, the EPA proposed a new SNUR in January 2015, “designating as a significant new use manufacturing . . . or processing of an identified subset of [PFAS] for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other [PFAS] for which there are currently no ongoing uses.” >... The proposed rule also made clear that the SNUR would apply only to “any use not ongoing as of the date on which this proposed rule is published.” Id. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pd... Emphasis mine.
- rayiner 3y agoIf you look at the context of the statute, it’s clearly distinguishing between stuff companies already make versus new stuff companies intend to make. For example, it requires giving notice to the EPA of “such person’s intention to manufacture or process such substance.”