Late last month, the Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which seeks review of the EPA’s decision earlier this year to grant California a waiver of federal preemption to implement a strict set of automobile emissions.

The EPA’s motion, filed on Oct. 26 and joined by several states that are intervenors in the case, argues that as member-based organizations, both the Chamber and NADA must identify at least one member who will suffer an injury as a result of the California waiver in order to establish standing – something the EPA alleges the two groups have not done, and likely cannot, do.  The EPA’s motion states:

With regard to standing, petitioners’ docketing statement says only, “Members of the Petitioners Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and National Automobile Association will be adversely affected by costs and other commercial burdens resulting from the order.”

That statement is tantamount to asserting that “Petitioners have standing because they have standing.” It does not address any of the elements that petitioners must prove to establish standing.

Also on Oct. 26, the Chamber filed a response opposing the EPA’s request for an extended briefing schedule.

As we explain here, this lawsuit was filed in spite of an agreement reached back in May between automakers, California, and the Obama Administration.  As part of that deal, the President announced his Administration would both grant California a waiver and at the same time, adopt its emission standards nationwide, while automakers in turn agreed to stop legally challenging the California standards.  Auto dealers, who are represented by the Chamber and NADA in this current lawsuit, were not party to the deal.   However, the EPA’s motion to dismiss notes that if the California standards are to be adopted nationally then there is little evidence that granting California a waiver to implement the same standards in its own state will cause an injury to any of the Chamber’s or NADA’s members —  hence the two groups’ alleged lack of standing.

The case is Chamber of Commerce of the US, et al. v. EPA (DC Cir., 09-1237)