Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 2, 2004No. 02-17352Published

1DissentThomas, Circuit Judge

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues that TCM 2 does not impose an enforceable obligation on MTC. Regardless of whether the “plain language” of TCM 2 suggests that the 15% ridership increase is best construed as an “obligation” or a “commitment” or a “target” or a “requirement,” it is undeniable that the Clean Air Act requires that state implementation plans be submitted to EPA in an “enforceable form.” See Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c); Trustees for Alaska v. Fink, 17 F.3d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir.1994). When the EPA approved TCM 2 as a component of California’s SIP in 1984,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Christensen v. Harris CountySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. General Motors Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transportation CommissionDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2001
  4. Trustees For Alaska v. FinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API