4 ms·

Why the heck is one department of the Executive Branch arguing against another when the latter is the one with the specific expertise to judge such a thing?!?!

Jtsummers 2y ago
One is a regulatory agency, the other is not. USAF doesn’t benefit from Chevron like EPA and others do (or did). Also these cleanups come out of their budgets and they’d rather (mis)spend it elsewhere.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  Sure, but the USAF is directly under the control of SecDef, who is a member of the Cabinet. The sitting president is a Democrat, which suggests he supports the EPA's position here. He could order the USAF to comply. This seems like something that would not just fly under the radar, so the choice to defy the EPA has to be intentional.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    Of course it’s intentional. The executive is not monolithic. If directed by high enough up they might accept the now-disputed EPA rules but EPA is not their boss. Agencies work against each other all the time.
    - justin66 2y ago
      > If directed by high enough up they might accept the now-disputed EPA rules Since we're talking about the military, it's less legally complicated than it might be with some other agencies: the president could make that happen with a phone call, there's not really any "might" about it. One assumes he either doesn't know or care what's going on, or (more interestingly, and I think more likely) the OLC has reasons for wanting things to go the way they're going.
rootusrootus 2y ago
You're attracting downvotes, but I think you make a good point. It's a legitimate question to ask, why would the Air Force, which is very much under the control of the executive, be defiant in this case? I would expect the current administration to be supportive of the EPA. Is this some kind of political maneuver? I mean, the president is currently making the argument for SCOTUS reform, so this could be a way of making it look like a good idea.
- ineedaj0b 2y ago
  They have expertise in air support. The EPA has expertise cleaning up superfund sites
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  It's not at all unusual for large organizations to have that kind of internal conflict. For an IT example, consider employees trying to circumvent corporate computer security rules that they feel get in the way of doing their jobs.
- nonethewiser 2y ago
  In theory the President controls the entire executive branch but in practice they do not.
themgt 2y ago
The article itself makes this point, raising the question of why this hasn't already been resolved internally. But legal experts noted that Chevron does not affect EPA enforcement actions like the Tucson order – it only affects the rule-making process. Moreover, one arm of the administration cannot sue another, so the military cannot sue the EPA, and the case would never end up in court where the Chevron decision would come into play, said Walter Mugdan, a former EPA Superfund director. Instead, it would be resolved internally by a presidential administration instead of the judiciary.

Jtsummers 2y ago

One is a regulatory agency, the other is not. USAF doesn’t benefit from Chevron like EPA and others do (or did). Also these cleanups come out of their budgets and they’d rather (mis)spend it elsewhere.

rootusrootus 2y ago
Sure, but the USAF is directly under the control of SecDef, who is a member of the Cabinet. The sitting president is a Democrat, which suggests he supports the EPA's position here. He could order the USAF to comply. This seems like something that would not just fly under the radar, so the choice to defy the EPA has to be intentional.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Of course it’s intentional. The executive is not monolithic. If directed by high enough up they might accept the now-disputed EPA rules but EPA is not their boss. Agencies work against each other all the time.
  - justin66 2y ago
    > If directed by high enough up they might accept the now-disputed EPA rules Since we're talking about the military, it's less legally complicated than it might be with some other agencies: the president could make that happen with a phone call, there's not really any "might" about it. One assumes he either doesn't know or care what's going on, or (more interestingly, and I think more likely) the OLC has reasons for wanting things to go the way they're going.

rootusrootus 2y ago

You're attracting downvotes, but I think you make a good point. It's a legitimate question to ask, why would the Air Force, which is very much under the control of the executive, be defiant in this case? I would expect the current administration to be supportive of the EPA. Is this some kind of political maneuver? I mean, the president is currently making the argument for SCOTUS reform, so this could be a way of making it look like a good idea.

ineedaj0b 2y ago
They have expertise in air support. The EPA has expertise cleaning up superfund sites
tbrownaw 2y ago
It's not at all unusual for large organizations to have that kind of internal conflict. For an IT example, consider employees trying to circumvent corporate computer security rules that they feel get in the way of doing their jobs.
nonethewiser 2y ago
In theory the President controls the entire executive branch but in practice they do not.

themgt 2y ago

The article itself makes this point, raising the question of why this hasn't already been resolved internally. But legal experts noted that Chevron does not affect EPA enforcement actions like the Tucson order – it only affects the rule-making process. Moreover, one arm of the administration cannot sue another, so the military cannot sue the EPA, and the case would never end up in court where the Chevron decision would come into play, said Walter Mugdan, a former EPA Superfund director. Instead, it would be resolved internally by a presidential administration instead of the judiciary.