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