> As opposed to elected officials, who... wait. Most of the regulatory agencies are _not_ made of the elected officials. It's career bureaucrats, who can't be

> As opposed to elected officials, who... wait. Most of the regulatory agencies are _not_ made of the elected officials. It's career bureaucrats, who can't be easily fired. Positions appointed by elected officials are called "political", and they have limited power. > The US government is the largest bureaucracy in the world with an annual budget larger than that of any private corporation, employs more lawyers than anyone else, and those lawyers' average compensation breaks six figures. LOL. I see you have never interacted with the actual agencies. They are on about as shoe-string budget as possible. Most lawyers go to work for the Fed if they want loan forgiveness and/or want a steady job with guaranteed benefits. > About the first thing a court is going to do is rule on an injunction They are overwhelmingly granted even now, when companies can only question the _procedure_ and not the findings of facts. A company just needs to show that the regulation will cause them great harm if not stayed pending the outcome. > This doesn't really have anything to do with a circuit split, except insofar as the SCOTUS is more likely to take the case if there is one. If a company is operating in multiple circuits, it's pretty common to ask for injunction pending on the outcome of the trial in other circuits and the eventual appeal. > What happens if you sue the polluters? Usually nothing. In general, you simply don't have standing. You have to show a real material injury, and something like "50% greater risk of bladder cancer" is _not_ it.