78民權組織要求美眾議院開公聽會促實施家庭團聚法

After the Trump administration failed to meet a court-ordered family reunification deadline last week, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 77 civil rights groups sent a letter urging the U.S. House of Representatives to convene oversight hearings to demand answers. The administration has missed all of its court-ordered deadlines for reuniting children with their parents, and, as the letter notes, “It is inappropriate for 435 House members to return to their districts and to their families for the August recess while more than 700 young children are still being kept from their parents.” Congress needs to ensure the administration fixes the catastrophe it created – including by providing far more clarity on its plans for reunifying families, explaining how it will address the trauma that children have suffered under this policy, and clearly spelling out plans for the expansion of humane, lawful, and cost-efficient alternatives to detention in the future.

The letter sent to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today can be read in its entirety here, and is pasted below my signature.

Letter to Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi re: Oversight of Family Separation Policy

July 30, 2018

Recipient: United States House of Representatives

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi:

On behalf of the undersigned civil and human rights organizations, we write to express our profound concern regarding the Trump administration’s unacceptably slow response to its self-created crisis of family separations at our Southern border. The administration has now missed all of its court-ordered deadlines for reuniting children with their parents, and we urge you to convene oversight hearings to demand answers about this cruel and ineffective policy. It is inappropriate for 435 House members to return to their districts and to their families for the August recess while more than 700 young children are still being kept from their parents.

As you know, in April, the Trump administration announced it would criminally prosecute all undocumented immigrants who were detained at the U.S.-Mexico border, even those seeking asylum, with no exceptions made for those who were traveling with their children. This resulted in parents being sent to jails, and in their children being taken away and placed in the custody of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In less than two months, more than 2,500 children were needlessly taken away from their parents.

While the bipartisan outcry against this cruel practice eventually pressured the administration to reconsider its approach, the damage to the affected children has been incalculable, and the administration’s response has been nothing short of incompetent. Last month, a federal district judge ordered the administration to reunite all children under the age of five with their parents within a two-week period. Only a fraction of children in that age group were reunited by the deadline, and weeks later, dozens remain separated. The same court also ordered the administration to reunite all children between 5 and 17 years of age within one month – and yesterday we learned that the government again has fallen far short. To complicate matters further, the administration acknowledged that it has deported as many as 468 parents without their children, making it likely that this crisis will continue for a significant period of time.

This summer, we saw the administration and its allies try to use this manufactured crisis as leverage to force votes on a slew of unrelated immigration law reforms. We now urge you to use your oversight and appropriations authority as leverage to ensure the administration fixes the catastrophe it created – including by providing far more clarity on its plans for reunifying families, explaining how it will address the trauma that children have suffered under this policy, and clearly spelling out plans for how it will instead use humane, lawful, and cost-efficient alternatives to detention in the future.

For example, the administration still needs to explain:

1. Why it is unilaterally making “eligibility” determinations that narrow the numbers of families that “qualify” for reunification;
2. What its plan and timeline is for finding deported parents and reunifying them with their children in the United States;
3. Why it is pushing to deport families as quickly as possible after reunification;
4. Why it continues to needlessly jail thousands of children, separated parents, and immigrants in inhumane ICE detention facilities when they are eligible for release; and
5. How it responds to reports that it has destroyed records related to family separations.

Again, this is not the time for Congress to return to their families while so many children are waiting to return to theirs. The Senate intends to hold a hearing this week, but we need both chambers of Congress to do everything in their power to help resolve this crisis. Members of Congress should also use this upcoming month to visit detention facilities nationwide as well as at the border, and with jailed immigrants to better understand the chaos and cruelty that this administration has wrought.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Action Together Network

American Federation of Teachers

American Humanist Association

Andrew Goodman Foundation

Anti-Defamation League

Arab American Institute (AAI)

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum

Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance

Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Center for Community Self-Help

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Center for Popular Democracy

Children’s Defense Fund

Coalition on Human Needs

Conference of Major Superiors of Men (Catholic)

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Defending Rights & Dissent

Democrats for Education Reform

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund

Equal Justice Society

Equality California

Farmworker Justice

FORGE, Inc.

Freedom Network USA

Futures Without Violence

Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc.

Hispanic Federation

Human Rights Campaign

Immigration Hub

Impact Fund

In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda

Japanese American Citizens League

Justice in Motion

Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Legal Momentum, the Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

Mi Familia Vota

Muslim Public Affairs Council

NAACP

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

National Action Network

National Association of Human Rights Workers

National Association of Social Workers

National Black Justice Coalition

National Center for Transgender Equality

The National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA)

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)

National Disability Rights Network

National Employment Law Project

National Immigrant Justice Center

National Immigration Law Center

National Indian Education Association

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund

National Organization for Women

National Partnership for Women & Families

National Women’s Law Center

Oxfam America

Partnership for America’s Children

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

SEIU

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Sikh American Legal Defense and education Fund

The Sikh Coalition

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas – Institute Justice Team

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)

Teach Plus

Truman National Security Project

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

UnidosUS (formerly National Council of La Raza)

Union for Reform Judaism

United Church of Christ

YWCA USA

哈佛大學否認招生歧視亞裔

(Boston Orange整理)哈佛大學在週五(7月27日)早上遞交給法庭的文件中，費力地否認該校歧視亞裔美籍申請者的指控。

           這所長春藤大學的錄取學生作法，是一樁聯邦平權法律訴訟的中心焦點。該校辯稱重視亞裔美籍申請者的族裔背景，並未基於族裔來設定錄取學生數額的上限。

哈佛表示，在那辯稱哈佛歧視背後的統計分析錯得很厲害，導致誤導性敘述。在另一份聲明中，哈佛辯稱控告該校的組織創造了900份應該是無可爭論事實的圖表，其中有許多卻既非無可爭論，還甚至不是事實。

哈佛大學在週五遞交的報告是代表數名亞裔美籍學生的”學生爭取公平錄取(Students for Fair Admissions)”所提出，持續進行中的控告案件的一部分。

在遞交的文件中，哈佛堅稱"學生爭取公平錄取”迄今拿出來的證據遠不足以證明有意歧視，也不符合代表該組織的快速判斷標準。

哈佛稱其對手六月份遞交的一份”45頁新聞稿，致力於陳現誤導敘述，明顯的需要真正爭辯”。

代表”學生爭取公ˊ錄取”的主要人物Edward Blum週五在一份聲明中表示，”學生爭取錄取公平”期待十月份在審訊中陳現個案，到時候剩餘的節錄資料，備忘錄，電子郵件，以及哈佛大學拒絕透露的證詞，將會被公開。

           這風險很高的案子可能會轉變大專院校在錄取學生時如何考慮種族，大學領導，法律學者，保守及自由群體，以及美國司法部都密切關注。

“學生爭取公平錄取”的會長Edward Blum曾經餐與反平權行動個案，最近還支持德州大學一名白人學生挑戰基於種族的入學許可。在德州大學的這宗個案中，最高法院決定，大學可用種族作為許多因素之一。

不過哈佛大學這案子，為反對平權行動打開了新的一面，指控那傷害了亞裔美籍大學申請者。

數個外界團體很可能在未來數週遞交在這案件中他們自己的摘要。川普總統下的司法部以鼓勵學校廢除基於種族意識的入學許可政策，本月稍早還推翻了奧巴馬時代的平權行動指導原則。一些專家稱那是該部門也將涉入哈佛個案的訊號。

這個案子排定10月15日審訊，大多數的專家都預期在未來年月中，最終會到最高法院去。

“學生爭取公平錄取”聲稱哈佛限制接受亞裔美籍申請者的數目，而且從整個的學術圈來看，亞裔美籍學生在個人美德這一項上，從大學入學許可官員納德到的評分，遠低於他們的同儕，根據他們對申請書的審閱，”學生爭取錄取公平”聲稱有許多申請成為哈佛1600名新生之一的亞裔美籍學生，被形容為”標準優秀(standard strong)”，即使他們的學術表現比被入學許可官做同樣形容的其他族裔學生更好。

不過哈佛在週五時說，形容學生”標準優秀”並不是一個稱號。事實上，哈佛辯稱，它訓練入學許可官要了解各種亞裔美籍社區之間的細微不同，避免把他們當做一個集團來處理。

           哈佛在遞交的文件中指出，該校的入學許可辦公室強調，一個學生的家長都是在印度的西藏難民營中出生的，另一名越南申請人是家中第一個上大學的小孩，還是全市最好學校的畢業致詞生。

哈佛也批評”學生爭取公平錄取"用來分析該校入學許可數據的方法，因為那排除了在過程中獲得特別優惠的申請者，包括招募體育健將，以及校友的孩子。”學生爭取公平錄取”在法庭文件中承認，並列舉了這些做法，哈佛大學表示把那從核心資料排除所做的分析，偏頗了結果。

哈佛認為，他們的證據顯示，該校在入學許可上洽當的使用了種族做審核元素，亞裔美籍學生並未在過程中被懲罰。

在兩個特定時段、地段經過的人 請檢查是否感染麻疹

CITY OFFICIALS ALERT OF POTENTIAL MEASLES EXPOSURE IN BOSTON

BOSTON – Friday, July 27, 2018 ­– The Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC) today alerted the public of a potential measles exposure at two Boston locations, after receiving notification of a confirmed case of measles. Anyone who visited the following locations during the specified dates and times could become ill between July 26 and August 10, 2018: Tasty Burger at 1301 Boylston Street on July 19, 2018 between 7 p.m. - 11 p.m., and Logan Airport Terminal B on July 20, 2018 between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Measles is a highly contagious virus that is spread through the air through coughing and sneezing. The virus may remain in the environment for up to two hours after the infectious person has left the area. Exposure can occur even without direct contact with an infectious person. Early symptoms include a high fever, runny nose, cough, and red eyes. A skin rash usually occurs three to five days later and begins as flat, red spots on the face. If experiencing these symptoms, people are advised to contact their health care provider by phone immediately for further instructions. If a person has had measles in the past or has received two doses of the vaccine, they are unlikely to become ill even if exposed. If they are uncertain of their immunity status, BPHC recommends monitoring for symptoms and contacting their health care provider. BPHC is working with other health officials on this case and monitoring for potential exposures. BPHC has also reached out to Boston residents to increase awareness about risk of exposure and encourage people who were potentially exposed to call their health care provider by phone for further instructions.

中華公所可負擔住宅土地發展案有望添為三項

                            (Boston Orange 周菊子整理報導)紐英崙中華公所即將於7月31日舉行本年度第四次董事大會。公所主席陳家驊提交的9點報告，透露中華公所籌畫中的可負擔住宅土地發展計畫可能增為三項。

              其中兩項是在中華公所董事大會中討論過許多次的喜露街50號，以及大同村南停車場。

              新增的是，泰勒街78號，波士頓天主教會擁有的樓宇，一旦波士頓市政府搓合成功，中華公所就可向波士頓天主教會買下那座樓宇來改建。。

              喜露街50號的可負擔住宅計畫，為爭取建造更多數量的可負擔住宅，中華公所和戴維斯公司(TDC)，波士頓華人佈道會(BCEC)攜手，申請成為”指定計畫區域(PDA)”，以期樓宇的可建高度，容積率等可適用於市政府相對寬鬆的限制要求。

              中華公所主席陳家驊在報告中指出，波士頓計畫發展局(BPDA)在7月12日的董事會議中，批准了位於所物道/華盛頓街區塊的這發展計畫，下一步將是等區域規畫委員會(zoning commission)在9月12日批准這區域劃分的變更，然後由波士頓市長簽署通過。估計過程會很順利。

              根據中華公所和戴維斯公司的協議，中華公所可從戴維斯公司那兒獲得大約10萬元，做為提出大樓設計方案的補償費用，在相關單位批准PDA申請後的30天申訴期內，若無人申訴或者申訴無效，中華公所還可獲得15萬元的完成費。這筆錢將可容許中華公所聘請一名發展主任來管理中華公所預定經辦的土地發展計畫，包括喜露街50號，大同村南停車場。

根據波士頓市政府的包容發展政策(IDP)，戴維斯公司的土地發展計畫，必須建造28個可負擔住宅，或者交給政府等同28個住宅單位的一筆錢。中華公所正在和戴維斯公司協商，若把這28個單位放進中華公所的喜露街50號發展計畫中，得付給中華公所多少錢。戴維斯公司計畫今年稍後或明年初破土動工。

稍後，戴維斯公司也得和波士頓華人佈道會展開同樣的對話。

陳家驊提議中華公所董事先在內部討論，是否立即要求戴維斯公司提出方案，或者先聘請建築師來做好中華公所大樓的進一步設計，再說。因為中華公所自己的發展計畫案越成熟，談判就有更好的依據。

中華公所也已經在和波士頓鄰里發展局(DND)討論把喜露街50號改建成可負擔住宅的財務問題。

在不久的將來，中華公所也需要和喜露街50號的承租商，中國超市，認真討論提早結束合約的可行性，以推進建造可負擔住宅計畫。

中華公所預定八月份安排一次特別董事會，報告喜露街50號和大同村停車場計畫的最新進展。

              陳家驊也指出，擴建大同村一案，已有榮氏(Winn)，畢肯(Beacon)，以及亞美社區發展協會(ACDC)等三個機構提交了了發展計畫，中華公所備有紙印版，公所董事有興趣翻閱，都可索取。

              中華公所也已和鄰里發展局(DND)的席拉狄倫(Sheila Dillon )、克莉絲汀歐奇菲(Christine O’Keefe)，波士頓計畫發展局(BPDA)的提姆戴維斯(Tim Davis)談過，估計可從波士頓市政府獲得合理補助數額。中華公所將藉由這些資訊，向前述三機構提出進一步問題，並在本月稍後再審閱他們的回應。

              中華公所會就大同村停車場和喜露街50號舉行特別會議。

七月廿四日時，陳家驊和朱蘇珊，雷國輝，陳毓禮，陳文棟等人和波士頓市長Walsh，鄰里發展局局長席拉狄倫，及徐丹晨晤談。

在會議中，波士頓市長同意搓合中華公所和天主教區協商，由天主教區把泰勒街78號賣給中華公所，以建造可負擔住宅(藉著增加幾層樓，可能會是10到12個家庭單位)。波士頓市長也提議把來自必珠街酒店項目的社區福利，以及來自市府的一些財務援助，交給泰勒街78號發展計畫。

              陳家驊在主席報告中表示，由於中華公所將有幾項土地發展計畫，他希望要求董事大會授權財務小組，以及物業小組來聯合決定聘請發展管理人員的職稱，職務描述，資格及薪資(年薪不超過10萬元，福利不超過30%)。另外再授權聯席小組委員會搜尋候選人，面談，並於九月會議中推薦人選。

              陳家驊還報告，黃光野和黃氏公所控告中華公所一案，仍在調查階段。黃氏公所已兩次和中華公所接觸，試圖找尋解決辦法，不過兩次都沒下文。中華公所的立場是，會盡力尋求共同點，會參與任何進一步的解決問題努力。

              陳家驊指出，不幸的是，關於這宗訟案，有不正確的資訊在坊間流傳。他認為中華公所的董事們應該很清楚，此案原告是黃氏公所和黃光野先生。法院已頒發初步禁制令，暫時延緩執行中華公所董事大會的2017年5月9日決議案。這禁制令在此案最後解決前有效，也就是如果原告撤銷告訴，中華公所的決議案就有效，黃光野的顧問頭銜將被撤銷，擔任出席中華公所代表董事的權力也將被暫停三年。除非雙方達成協議，此案仍在法庭審理中。

中華公所有紙張版的黃光野和陳家驊口供抄錄本，但將只提供給中華公所董事過目。

關於塔芙茨大學(Tufts)獎學金一事，中華公所還在和該校協商條款。中華公所已招募數名塔芙茨大學校友來提供想法和建議，也在向大學施壓。

中華公所也試著遊說塔芙茨大學允許餐館顧客晚上在以前的青年會會址停車。那並不容易，但他們在嘗試。

              另外，中華公所應於五月十五日交給總檢察官辦公室的報告，已在五月廿四日交出去了。該報告的電子版，附在五月廿九日的中華公所主席報告中，在中華公所辦公室也有紙張版供索取。下一次交報告的日期預訂為八月十五日。

Governor Baker Signs Bill Repealing Archaic Massachusetts Laws

Governor Baker Signs Bill Repealing Archaic Massachusetts Laws

Removing antiquated laws will formally ensure women’s access to reproductive health care in MA

BOSTON – Governor Baker today signed S. 2260, An Act relative to reproductive health, repealing a number of archaic provisions, some of which were initially passed into law in the 1800s and have since become largely unenforceable in light of decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He was joined by Lt. Governor Karyn Polito, Speaker DeLeo (D-Winthrop), Senator Chandler (D-Worcester), Representative Haddad (D-Somerset), Dr. Jennifer Childs-Roshak, President & CEO of Planned Parenthood Massachusetts, Rebecca Hart Holder, Executive Director of NARAL Massachusetts, and several other members of the legislature.

“Massachusetts has long been a leader in women’s health care and access to family planning services, and signing this bipartisan bill into law is another step in the right direction,” said Governor Baker.  “We are pleased to join our colleagues in the Legislature to formally repeal archaic laws.”

“We are pleased to collaborate with our legislative colleagues to continue the Commonwealth’s tradition of protecting a woman’s right to reproductive health care,” said Lieutenant Governor Polito. “Repealing such antiquated laws from an unrecognizable time will ensure that Massachusetts remains a safe and welcoming place for all young women.”

S. 2260 repeals a law that requires an abortion conducted during or after the 13th week of pregnancy be performed in a hospital authorized for general surgery, which conflicts with current practice that permits women to also receive services at health clinics. These laws are rescinded effective immediately upon the governor’s signature.

“The Baker-Polito Administration has a proven track record of protecting women’s access to affordable, safe and reliable family planning services,” saidHealth and Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders. “Massachusetts leads the country in health care with nearly universal coverage, and signing this important bill into law reaffirms our commitment to comprehensive health care.”

“It’s critical that we protect the rights of Massachusetts women so they may continue to make their own choices regarding their health,” said HouseSpeaker Robert A. DeLeo, (D – Winthrop). “This action takes outdated and misguided laws off the books and makes clear where the Commonwealth stands on reproductive and women’s rights.”

“As women’s rights are under constant assault on a national level, this vital legislation will ensure Massachusetts remains at the forefront of protecting women and the services they most need,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “I am thankful the Governor signed this bill. It is as a sign of our Commonwealth’s continued and steadfast commitment to protecting the health of women and their access to essential care.”

“I have filed this legislation over and over again to no avail. But in these times we have reached a tipping point, and women and men across Massachusetts are standing up to anti-women, anti-choice policies,” said Senate President Emerita Harriette L. Chandler (D-Worcester). “Access to women’s health services are under constant threat in Washington, and state legislatures must act to ensure that women continue to have the right to choose. I am very happy that we are signing this bill today.”

"By passing this legislation, we in Massachusetts are reaffirming our commitment to further ensure basic rights for our citizens", stated Rep. Patricia A. Haddad (D-Somerset), House Speaker Pro Tempore. "We are removing opportunities to enforce archaic laws which should have been removed long ago".

"Repealing archaic laws impacting women's reproductive health care has been decades in the making. Once again, we have proven that regardless of what happens in Washington, the basic rights of women will be safeguarded in Massachusetts” said Rebecca Hart Holder, President of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. “We are grateful to Governor Baker for signing this legislation and removing harmful, archaic laws from the Massachusetts General Laws. With this important victory, we are sending a clear message to Washington. We will not turn back the clock, and we will not put the lives of women at risk. Repealing antiquated laws is the first, critical step to ensuring that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, the reproductive freedom of the people of Massachusetts will be unequivocally guaranteed."

“Today Massachusetts proclaimed its commitment to reproductive rights, health care access, and equality by wiping these harmful laws from the books,”said Dr. Jennifer Childs-Roshak, President and CEO, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. “These archaic laws represented a Massachusetts that no longer exists—one in which women did not have autonomy over their bodies, lives, or futures—and one that should never again exist. As Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court puts the right to abortion on the line, Massachusetts is reaffirming we value reproductive rights, individual liberty, and the ability of all people to make their own decisions about their own bodies, their own lives, and their own futures.”

“I’ve been concerned about the impact of archaic laws remaining on the books since the fight for marriage equality,” said House Majority Whip Byron Rushing (D – South End). “During the fight for marriage, city and town clerks began to enforce the ‘1913 law’ that prevented marriages in Massachusetts if they were not legal in the couple’s home state. This law was originally used to prevent interracial couples from coming to Massachusetts to be legally married here.  After decades in obscurity, and not being enforced – but still ‘on the books’ – it was then used to prohibit marriage for same sex couples. It is critical that we take all archaic laws off of our books, because we never know how an old, hateful law will be used in new, hateful ways in the future.”

AG HEALEY LEADS 18 STATE AGS IN DEFENDING RULES ON OZONE-DEPLETING CHEMICALS

AG HEALEY LEADS 18 STATE AGS IN DEFENDING RULES ON OZONE-DEPLETING CHEMICALS

Coalition of Attorneys General Files Supreme Court Brief Alongside Major Company in Support of Higher Standards

BOSTON – Attorney General Maura Healey led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that upended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act to ban dangerous substitutes, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), for ozone-depleting substances. 

Since 1990, the Clean Air Act has required EPA to phase out the production and use of substances that harm the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer. The Clean Air Act’s “Safe Alternatives Policy” is designed to ensure that this phase-out of harmful ozone-depleting substances does not give rise to dangerous substitute chemicals. Under the Safe Alternatives Policy, EPA is required to publish and update lists of safe and prohibited substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.

“Leading manufacturers have already adopted higher standards that protect the ozone layer, and now the EPA wants to pull the rug out from under them to reward companies that damage the planet with dangerous chemicals,” said AG Healey. “We’re in this case alongside major businesses and environmental groups to defend these commonsense restrictions that make our products safer and protect public health and our environment.”

In 2015, EPA issued a rule prohibiting certain uses of HFCs as a substitute for ozone-depleting substances. HFCs are climate super-pollutants and are commonly used in millions of consumer products, from refrigerators and air-conditioning units to cosmetics, spray cans, and household cleaners. They are among the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas pollution globally, with hundreds to thousands of times the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide. When EPA finalized its HFC rule in 2015, EPA estimated that the rule would avoid 26 to 31 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2020. This would be the equivalent of the emissions of 6.4 million passenger cars driven for year, or the annual energy use for 3.2 million homes.

The coalition attorneys general filed the brief Thursday in support of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Honeywell International Inc.’s petitions for U.S. Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in Mexichem v. EPA.  In response to a lawsuit brought by two foreign chemical companies challenging the 2015 Rule, a divided D.C. Circuit Court panel held in that case that EPA can no longer ban all uses of a prohibited substitute under the Clean Air Act’s so-called “safe alternative policy,” no matter how poisonous, explosive, or harmful to the environment the substitute may be.

The attorneys general argue in the brief that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is legally flawed and disrupted states’ decades-long reliance on EPA’s authority to ban the use of unsafe chemical substitutes. The court upended a strong national program that efficiently and effectively protected human health and the environment from the risks of chemical substitutes, and that promoted innovation and investment in developing safe alternatives. The attorneys general contend that the decision below generated enormous uncertainty for states, their consumers, and their businesses. 

Following the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt effectively rescinded the 2015 HFC rule in its entirety in April 2018.  Pruitt rolled back the rule by issuing guidance, rather than through a public rulemaking process, as required by federal law. AG Healey was part of a coalition of 12 attorneys general that sued the EPA last month over the rollback of the HFC rule. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general allege that lifting limits on the use of HFCs will damage ongoing efforts to combat climate change.

            Joining AG Healey in filing the brief in the Supreme Court are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,Minnesota, by and through its Pollution Control Agency, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

This matter was handled by Special Assistant Attorney General Megan Herzog, Assistant Attorneys General Amanda Morejon and Seth Schofield, and Christophe Courchesne, Chief of AG Healey’s Environmental Protection Division.