Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No.
23A349
Materials
| Letter of EPA submitted. |
| Letter of respondents of respondents EPA, et al. notifying Court of proposed settlement agreement with Nevada Cement Company, LLC filed. VIDED. filed. (Distributed) |
| Letter of EPA submitted. |
| Letter of respondents EPA, et al. updating Court filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| Argued. For state applicants: Mathura J. Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio. For industry applicants: Catherine E. Stetson, Washington, D. C. For federal respondents: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For state respondents: Judith N. Vale, Deputy Solicitor General, New York, N. Y. VIDED. |
| Letter of EPA submitted. |
| Letter of respondents EPA, et al. notifying the Court of proposed rule filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| Motion for divided argument filed by applicants GRANTED. VIDED. |
| Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED. VIDED. |
| Motion for divided argument filed by applicants. VIDED. |
| Any motion regarding oral argument is due on or before Friday, January 12, 2024. VIDED. |
| Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument filed. VIDED. |
| Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and available with the Clerk. |
| SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 21, 2024. VIDED. |
| Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. |
| Consideration of the applications for stay (23A349, 23A350, 23A351, and 23A384) presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. The applications are consolidated, and a total of 1 hour is allotted for oral argument. The applications will be set for argument in the February 2024 argument session. Arguing counsel should be prepared to address, among other issues related to the challenge based on the SIP disapprovals, whether the emissions controls imposed by the Rule are reasonable regardless of the number of States subject to the Rule. VIDED. |
| Application (23A349) referred to the Court. |
| Reply of applicant Ohio, et al. filed. |
| Response to application from respondent New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and District of Columbia, City of New York, and Harris County,TX filed. |
| Response to application from respondent EPA filed. |
| Response to application from respondent Public Interest Respondents filed. |
| Response to application (23A349) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 4 p.m. (EDT) on October 30, 2023. |
| Application (23A349) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
Search This Case
