# Opposition — Train v. District of Columbia > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2177%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 426 U.S. 904 ## Text RESPONSE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Octoper Term, 1975 No. 75-1055 Russet, Train, ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL Protection AGENCY, Petitioner, Vv. District or CoLumBia, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Joun R. RisHEr, JR. Corporation Counsel, D.C. Louis P. Rossrys, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Joun C. SALyEr, Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Attorneys for Respondents, District Building, Washington, D. C. 20004 Telephone: 629-5067 INDEX Sussect Inpex Pas EE LESSEE A A 1 EE ee ae 2 ES 4 Cases Crrzp Commonwealth of Virginia Ez Rel State Air Pollution Control Board EE 2 District of Columbia v. Carter (1973) 400 US. 418 _.....-..---_---------- 3 District of Columbia v. Thompson Co. (1953) 346 US. 100 ___-.-__----- 3 District of Columbia v. Train, —— US. App. D.C. ——, 521 F.2d EE a 3 EPA v. Brown, No. 75-0908 (9th Cir.) .....-.-.---.-.---------------.--.-- 2 EPA v. State of Maryland, No. 75-960 (4th Cir.) _.....----- muibetaenditienn 2 Pennsylvania v. EPA (3rd Cir. 1974), 500 F2d 246 _......- 3 Ee 4 Oruea AuTHORITIES CITED Constitution of the United States Article I, §8, cl. 17 ~..-....--------- 3 District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmentai Reorgani- sation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-198 87 Stat. 774 _.......----_-__---_-_---_- 3 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Ocroper Term, 1975 No. 75-1055 Russet, Train, ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL Protection AGENCY, Petitioner, Vv. Distaict or CoL_umsi, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia RESPONSE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF THE UNITED STATES On January 26, 1976, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the above-referenced cause. OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals is reported at 521 F.2d 971 and printed in full at App. A, la-125a of the ap- pendix of the petitioner. RESPONSE On March 29, 1976 the Clerk of the Court infr ..2ed coun- sel for the Respondent District of Columbia that the Court has requested that a response be filed in this case by the District. Accordingly, the District makes the following response. As is noted in the petition of the United States, other petitions from similar cases arising in other Circuits are pending before the Court.’ In addition the Commonwealth of Virginia also has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case, seeking review of the opinion of the District of Columbia Circuit. The District of Columbia has not joined in that petition. It is the position of the District of Columbia that the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals in Brown and Maryland, supra n. 1, support its position fully. However, this is an issue of great importance reaching as it does into the roots of the relationship between the states and the federal government.* The question presented is bound to reoccur as the Administrator seeks to impose require- ments on the states to assure compliance with the stand- ards established under the Act. The inspection mainten- ance and retrofit provision of the regulations‘ were re- manded to the Agency for revision by the Circuit Court of Appeals. To date no new promulgation has been issued by the Agency. The District will await the new promulga- tion and will then determine whether to again seek review before the Circuit Court. 1 EPA v. Brown, No. 75-909 (9th Cir.); EPA v. State of Maryland, No. 75- 960 (4th Cir.). 2 Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel State Air Pollution Control Board v. Train, No. 75-1050. 3The Clean Air Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 1857h(d) provides that the District is a “state.” 4The pertinent regulatory requirements challenged are set forth in full in the Appendix of the Circuit Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Train, — US. App. DC. at——, 521 F.2d at 999 et seq. 3 The petitioner has repeatedly relied on the opinion of the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania v. EPA, 500 F.2d 246 (3rd Cir. 1974), relative to the authority of the Administra- tor of EPA to direct the states to adopt particular laws at his direction. The District of Columbia Circuit rejected the reasoning of the Third Circuit® with respect to the implication that arises when a federal regulation seeks to compel the states to enforce federal regulatory programs in this fashion. The opinions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits conflict with the Third Circuit opinion. The position of the District in this matter is no less serious than for the states. It is not merely that the District is denominated as a state for purposes of the Act that is significant. Congress exercises complete plenary power over the District,® and, in the exer- cise of that power, has delegated certain of its authority to the government of the District of Columbia.’ In so doing it has reserved certain powers. However, Congress did not delegate to the various federal agencies the authority to promulgate regulations for the District of Columbia with- out regard to the legislative authority delegated to the Council. The police power hitherto completely vested in Congress has been delegated in large degree to the Council of the District of Columbia.* It is the position of the Dis- trict of Columbia that the petitioner has no more authority to direct the Council with respect to what laws it will adopt than it has to tell a state legislature what laws to adopt. In view of the prolonged delays that have ayisen in the implementation of the clean air program nationally, it is 5 District of Columbia v. Train, —— US. App. D.C. ——, 521 F.2d at 904. 6 Art. I, $8, cl. 17 Constitution of the United States; see, e.g., District of Columbia v. Thompson Co., 46 US. 100 (1953); District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 US. 418 (1973). 7 District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganisation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774. 8Jd. Subject to Congressional review and to certain reservations not rele- vant here. 4 apparent that the issues that have been presented before the various circuits should be decided by this Court in order to decisively define the responsibilities between the states and federal agencies and to iisure uniformity in enforce- ment of the Act. CONCLUSION As the issues presented relate to the air quality pro- blems of this region the District welcomes final review of the questions of state and federal authority and responsi- bility under the Act. The similar question with respect to plan-revisions under the Act arose among the circuits and required final resolution by the Court in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975). No less a need exists here to resolve issues of exceptional significance. Joun R. RisHer, Jr. Corporation Counsel, D.C. Lovis P. Rossrns, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Joun C. Sa.yer, Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Attorneys for Respondents, District Building, Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: 629-5067 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2177%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.