Good afternoon:
Following-up on today's call, here are a few additional updates:
- The federal government filed its motion to dismiss and its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the case Appalachian Voices v. U.S. EPA (the class action lawsuit related to EPA's Climate Justice Block Grant terminations). The federal government argues the action is moot based on Congress passing the final reconciliation bill that included rescission of all unobligated funds supporting the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. Even if the case isn't moot, the federal government argues the Tucker Act bars the district court's jurisdiction. And then it argues that it had discretion to take the actions that it did under the APA.
You can find the opposition / motion to dismiss here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.281951/gov.uscourts.dcd.281951.67.0.pdf
-
I am also attaching the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification in Appalachian Voices v. EPA. They argue the court should first rule on their motion to dismiss, but then make arguments opposed to class certification, arguing the plaintiffs cannot meet the commonality requirement because each grant decision, per the defendants, was made on an individualized basis.
-
The plaintiffs filed a third motion for a PI in King County v. Turner, which is available here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.347622/gov.uscourts.wawd.347622.186.0.pdf. This motion involves both covering new plaintiffs that have been added since the court's last PI order and new grants / agencies. The plaintiffs argue in their motion that HUD is now imposing the enjoined conditions on all HUD grants, not just the CoC grant (which is subject to the court's injunction). The third PI motion notes that many plaintiffs need relief by August 14 to meet a submission deadline set forth in regulation. The expanded plaintiff group seeks a preliminary injunction (PI) extending the relief previously granted to new jurisdictions, barring HHS from applying unlawful conditions at any stage of the grant-making process, and barring HUD from doing the same as to all grant programs.
-
HUD has provided new instructions for service of process FYI - https://www.hud.gov/stat/ogc-service-of-process
As always, please continue to send me your updates. Our next call will be on 7/31 at 3 pm eastern.
Thanks,
Amanda
[logo]https://imla.org/
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./
Amanda Karras (she/her)
Executive Director / General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association
P: (202) 466-5424 x7116
D: (202) 742-1018
51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850
Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming eventshttps://imla.org/events/, calls and programming.
Good afternoon:
Following-up on today's call, here are a few additional updates:
1. The federal government filed its motion to dismiss and its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the case Appalachian Voices v. U.S. EPA (the class action lawsuit related to EPA's Climate Justice Block Grant terminations). The federal government argues the action is moot based on Congress passing the final reconciliation bill that included rescission of all unobligated funds supporting the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. Even if the case isn't moot, the federal government argues the Tucker Act bars the district court's jurisdiction. And then it argues that it had discretion to take the actions that it did under the APA.
You can find the opposition / motion to dismiss here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.281951/gov.uscourts.dcd.281951.67.0.pdf
1. I am also attaching the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification in Appalachian Voices v. EPA. They argue the court should first rule on their motion to dismiss, but then make arguments opposed to class certification, arguing the plaintiffs cannot meet the commonality requirement because each grant decision, per the defendants, was made on an individualized basis.
1. The plaintiffs filed a third motion for a PI in King County v. Turner, which is available here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.347622/gov.uscourts.wawd.347622.186.0.pdf. This motion involves both covering new plaintiffs that have been added since the court's last PI order and new grants / agencies. The plaintiffs argue in their motion that HUD is now imposing the enjoined conditions on all HUD grants, not just the CoC grant (which is subject to the court's injunction). The third PI motion notes that many plaintiffs need relief by August 14 to meet a submission deadline set forth in regulation. The expanded plaintiff group seeks a preliminary injunction (PI) extending the relief previously granted to new jurisdictions, barring HHS from applying unlawful conditions at any stage of the grant-making process, and barring HUD from doing the same as to all grant programs.
1. HUD has provided new instructions for service of process FYI - https://www.hud.gov/stat/ogc-service-of-process
As always, please continue to send me your updates. Our next call will be on 7/31 at 3 pm eastern.
Thanks,
Amanda
[logo]<https://imla.org/>
[facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./>
Amanda Karras (she/her)
Executive Director / General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association
P: (202) 466-5424 x7116
D: (202) 742-1018
51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850
Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.