Summary of Oral Argument in San Francisco: California v. USA; Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) recently argued before federal judges in a case that WSTA is following and that will affect our members. WSTA Executive Director, Lee Brown, WSTA Member Bill Aboudi, and WSTA Legal Council Pat Whalen attended the hearing. Here is a summary of the arguments, provided by Ted Hadzi-Antich, Senior Attorney for the TPPF:
Hi Lee,
As you requested, this email summarizes oral argument last week.
The three judges on our panel were all liberals appointed by Obama or Biden, and they were predisposed against us.
Counsel for the auto manufacturers, auto dealers, and fuel suppliers received a total of 15 minutes, while we received five minutes to argue on behalf of truckers. We agreed with co-counsel that they would present a macro picture of why the applicants for intervention should be permitted to intervene, while we would provide the details of the impacts on the trucking industry.
When our turn came, we began by pointing out that the facts set forth in the Aboudi declaration, the provisions of the federal intervention rules, the applicable case law, and common sense dictated that we should be permitted to intervene because we have a protectable interest in ensuring that the Congressional Resolutions remain intact, that no other party could effectively represent us, and that we had the right to intervene.
About two minutes into our presentation, one of the judges asked whether there was specific case law supporting our position that the Federal Government could not represent us effectively in this case. We explained that our briefs on that issue covered the question, but a second judge insisted that we point out a specific case that was not in the briefing. We told the court that we were not aware of any such case, but that common sense dictated that because the Federal Defendants are averse to us in the D.C. Circuit, they cannot effectively represent us in connection with the same subject matter in the Ninth Circuit. Seeing that time was running out, we reserved the remainder of time for rebuttal.
During rebuttal, we told the panel that regardless of their views regarding the inherent conflict-of-interest faced by the Federal Defendants, the applicable rules of intervention were squarely in our favor and that the entire edifice of the ACT Rule was based on targeting emissions from trucks. Accordingly, we told the court that, because truck emissions per se were the target of the ACT Rule, truckers were actually more entitled to intervene in the case than any of the other intervention applicants. That’s where we landed, and I think it made an impression on the court.
As you know, it’s difficult to predict the outcome of any case, and this one is no exception. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
Cheers,
Ted
Ted Hadzi-Antich
Senior Attorney
(Admitted in CA, NY, MD, TN, D.C.)
Center for the American Future
Texas Public Policy Foundation
901 Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
