Motion for divided argument — Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_______________

No. 24-7

DIAMOND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.

_______________

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

_______________

MOTION OF THE FEDERAL RESPONDENTS FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT

_______________

Pursuant to Rule 28.4 of the Rules of this Court, the Acting

Solicitor

General,

on

behalf

of

the

federal

respondents,

respectfully moves to divide the oral argument time for respondents

in the above-captioned case.

We move to allocate fifteen minutes

of oral argument time to the federal respondents and fifteen

minutes of time to the state respondents, led by the State of

California.

The state respondents have authorized us to represent

that they agree with that proposed allocation of time.

Granting

this motion would not require the Court to enlarge the overall

time for argument.

2

This case concerns whether petitioners carried their burden

of proving that they had standing under Article III to challenge

a

federal

regulatory

action

implicating

the

interests

of

California and other States. In 2022, the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) reinstated a waiver that EPA had granted to California

in 2013 under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

7543(b), to allow California to enforce certain state-law vehicle

emissions standards that would otherwise be preempted by federal

law.

Section 209(b) directs EPA to waive federal preemption under

the Clean Air Act of California emissions standards under specified

circumstances.

No other State is eligible for such a waiver, but

other States may in some circumstances adopt and enforce vehicle

emissions standards promulgated by California for which EPA has

granted a Section 209(b) waiver.

Petitioners

sought

42 U.S.C. 7507.

judicial

review

of

EPA’s

2022

reinstatement of the 2013 waiver in the United States Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The state respondents -- California

and a group of other States, the District of Columbia, and two

cities -- intervened to defend the 2022 reinstatement. As relevant

here, the court of appeals held that petitioners lack Article III

standing, and this Court granted further review limited to the

question

whether

“a

party

may

establish

the

redressability

component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and

predictable effects of regulation on third parties.”

Pet. I.

3

The federal government has a significant interest in the

resolution of that question, which may affect not only petitioners’

current challenge to the 2022 reinstatement, but also future

challenges to federal agency action.

The state respondents also

have a distinct interest in the question presented, given that the

2022 reinstatement had the effect of allowing the California

emissions standards encompassed by the 2013 waiver to take effect

in California and other States.

dividing

the

argument

time

Accordingly, we believe that

between

the

federal

and

respondents would be of material assistance to the Court.

Respectfully submitted.

SARAH M. HARRIS

Acting Solicitor General

Counsel of Record

MARCH 2025

state