Nos. 24-1522 24-1624, 24-1626, 24-1627, 24-1628, 24-1631, and 24-1634
`
`
`IN THE
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATE OF IOWA, ET AL.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
`Respondent,
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,
`Intervenor-Respondents.
`
`On Petitions for Review of an Order and Rule
`of the Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR-
`RESPONDENTS’
`MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
`
`
`BRENNA BIRD
`Attorney General of Iowa
`
`April 14, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC WESSAN
`Solicitor General
`PATRICK C. VALENCIA
`Deputy Solicitor General
`Hoover State Office Building
`1305 East Walnut Street
`Des Moines, Iowa 50319
`(515) 823-9117 / (515) 281-8770
`eric.wessan@ag.iowa.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Iowa
`*Additional counsel listed in
`signature block
`
`
`1
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATE OF IOWA, ET AL.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
`Respondent,
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,
`Intervenor-Respondents.
`
`On Petitions for Review of an Order and Rule
`of the Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR-
`RESPONDENTS’
`MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
`
`
`BRENNA BIRD
`Attorney General of Iowa
`
`April 14, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC WESSAN
`Solicitor General
`PATRICK C. VALENCIA
`Deputy Solicitor General
`Hoover State Office Building
`1305 East Walnut Street
`Des Moines, Iowa 50319
`(515) 823-9117 / (515) 281-8770
`eric.wessan@ag.iowa.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Iowa
`*Additional counsel listed in
`signature block
`
`
`1
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 6, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`
`
`adopted the most aggressive environmental regulation that it had ever
`
`attempted. That rule would increase the cost of being a public company
`
`in the United States by billions of dollars. Worse yet, this momentous,
`
`major rule is primarily an environmental regulation—not a securities
`
`regulation.
`
`
`
`Because Petitioners allege that the Rule is ruinously expensive and
`
`illegal, they sued and sought a stay. One of this Court’s sister circuits
`
`even granted a stay of the rule before the lottery transferred the
`
`challenge to this Court. And facing a strong likelihood of the Rule being
`
`stayed, SEC agreed to voluntarily stay the rule during the pendency of
`
`this litigation.
`
`Now the challenge to the Rule is fully briefed. SEC notified the
`
`Court “that it wishes to withdraw its defense of the Rules.” Yet SEC does
`
`not ask for the case to be held in continued abeyance—perhaps because
`
`SEC too benefits from a merits decision that helps define the scope of its
`
`authority. SEC has also has not shown any intent to withdraw the illegal
`
`rule, and SEC’s voluntary stay of the rule was contingent on completion
`
`2
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`of this judicial review. So there is still significant risk until the rule is set
`
`aside for good.
`
`Petitioners respectfully oppose Intervenor-Respondents’ unilateral
`
`request to hold this fully briefed case in abeyance. Briefing is completed
`
`and the Court has enough to come to a decision. The challenge to this
`
`Rule has proceeded for more than a year. Intervenor-Respondents
`
`pledged in their intervention motion that their intervention would not
`
`“cause undue delay or prejudice.” Mot. Int. Party Mass. et al., at *21 (Apr.
`
`3, 2024). Yet their motion to stay promises exactly that.
`
`Petitioners see two best options for this Court:
`
`1. Hold argument on the fully briefed case, allowing the parties
`to split time as needed to fully discuss the challenge to the
`Rule; or,
`2. Submit the case without argument and issue a decision or
`order holding the rule unlawful on the merits and vacating it.
`
`Until this Court issues a decision, the Rule hangs like the Sword of
`
`Damocles over public companies around the country. Neither
`
`Respondents, nor Intervenor-Respondents. should dictate the pace at
`
`which a challenge to a Rule should proceed. Even with the stay currently
`
`in place the Rule continues to impose potential liability up until the point
`
`that it is vacated. Indeed, it is no surprise that Intervenor-Respondents
`
`3
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`defending a Rule want the challenge to be indefinitely held in abeyance.
`
`That legal limbo serves no other party. There is no basis for such an
`
`extreme remedy.
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Respondents make much of SEC now declining to
`
`defend the illegal Rule before this Court. But Intervenor-Respondents
`
`can muster a defense—and have in their briefing. There is a certain irony
`
`to Intervenor-Respondents intervening in this case to defend the Rule for
`
`fear that SEC would decline to defend it and now asking this Court to
`
`hold the case in abeyance. Defending the Rule is why they intervened—
`
`not to ask for an indefinite abeyance that forever keeps a decision at bay.
`
`And Intervenor-Respondents acknowledge that every other Party in this
`
`case seeks this Court’s resolution on the merits. See Mot. to Hold Case in
`
`Abeyance, at *6 n.4 (Apr. 4, 2025) (“Intervenors’ Abeyance Motion”). Even
`
`worse, drastic problems attach to regulated parties when burdensome
`
`regulations are held indefinitely in abeyance.
`
`
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that this Court set these
`
`consolidated cases for argument and submission or, alternatively, submit
`
`the case for decision in an appropriate and timely manner.
`
`4
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The Court should deny Intervenor-Respondents’ request to hold
`
`this case in indefinite abeyance. The Supreme Court recently denied
`
`many requests for abeyance in cases that were similarly far down the
`
`tracks. It did so even when those requests came from the agency itself,
`
`and even when the agency said it wished to reassess the basis for and
`
`soundness of the underlying challenged actions—neither of which is true
`
`here. See, e.g., EPA v. Calumet Shreveport RFG, No. 23-1229, 2025 WL
`
`412995 (Feb. 6, 2025); Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA, No. 24-7, 2025
`
`WL 412999 (Feb. 6, 2025); Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 23-1067, 2025 WL
`
`412998 (Feb. 6, 2025); Pacificorp v. EPA, No. 23-1068, 2025 WL 412994
`
`(Feb. 6, 2025). This Court should do the same and deny Intervenor-
`
`Respondents’ requested indefinite abeyance.
`
`A. The requested stay promises serious harm to regulated
`companies, the States, and others with no discernible
`benefit in return.
`
`
`
`“The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.”
`
`Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). To carry their burden,
`
`Intervenor-Respondents “must make out a clear case of hardship or
`
`inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility
`
`5
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`that the stay for which [they] pray[] will work damage to someone else.”
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255, 255 (1936). Intervenor-
`
`Respondents cannot show any hardship to themselves in continuing with
`
`this case, and there is far more than a fair possibility of hardship to
`
`others.
`
`Intervenor-Respondents at most raise vague notions of conserving
`
`resources. But “the interests of judicial economy alone are insufficient to
`
`justify such an indefinite stay.” Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co.
`
`Commc’ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000). Even more so here.
`
`Briefing has been completed since September 2024, and (as discussed
`
`below) this Court need not hold oral argument before issuing an opinion
`
`or order vacating the climate rule. Weighed against any slight
`
`consideration of preserved effort is a multi-billion-dollar, unprecedented
`
`climate rule that remains on the books and imposes burdensome
`
`requirements on registered companies over the next several years. To be
`
`sure, the rule is temporarily stayed, but only by order of SEC rather than
`
`by court order. SEC itself will benefit from knowing the scope of its
`
`authority going forward. Petitioners and regulated industries need
`
`6
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`certainty in the form of a Court decision holding the rule unlawful and
`
`vacating it.
`
`SEC has not said that it intends to engage in a new rulemaking—
`
`nor would such anticipated rulemaking justify abeyance here. Contra
`
`Stay Mot. 5 (misreading a statement from the Acting SEC Chair to say
`
`that the Commission “has indicated that it is likely to amend or rescind
`
`[the challenged regulations] if upheld”). Even if SEC eventually began
`
`rulemaking, there is a serious risk that it would take years. Paul
`
`Rosenzweig, Making Good Cybersecurity Law and Policy: How Can We
`
`Get Tasty Sausage?, 8 I/S: J.L. & Pol’y for Info. Soc’y 393, 400 (2012)
`
`(noting that the average notice-and-comment rulemaking “takes
`
`eighteen to twenty-four months”). That delay would leave uncertainty
`
`and present a real possibility that the climate rule would not be fully off
`
`the books. And there is no guarantee that a new rule would cure the
`
`problems in the final Rule challenged here.
`
`If the Court holds this case in abeyance, it would extend a dispute
`
`that has been lingering for years. Despite being a priority of the last
`
`Administration’s SEC leadership, the climate rule was not finalized until
`
`more than three years into the presidential term, and legal challenges
`
`7
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`prevented
`
`it
`
`from meaningfully going
`
`into effect before that
`
`Administration ended. Many cases challenging regulations from even
`
`before January 2020 are still being litigated. They are still pending due
`
`to lengthy abeyances and stays, often because the Biden Administration
`
`miscalculated its ability to finalize a new lawful regulation before the end
`
`of its term in 2025. See, e.g., Pangea Legal Servs. v. DHS, No. 20-17490
`
`(9th Cir.) (appeal from No. 3:20-cv-7721 (N.D. Cal.)); Pangea Legal Servs.
`
`v. DHS, No. 3:20-cv-9253 (N.D. Cal.); U.T. v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-116
`
`(D.D.C.). Indefinitely staying this case promises a similar state of
`
`purgatory for the Rule. That outcome—which is far from speculative
`
`here—would harm Petitioners, who have faced the specter of the
`
`unlawful climate rule for more than three years. See Liberty Energy’s
`
`Emergency Mot. for Stay, at *27–28 (attached as Ex. 1 to letter filed Mar.
`
`26, 2024) (citing declarations stating that many covered entities would
`
`need a nearly-year-long head start to create the requisite “internal
`
`control systems and disclosure control procedures to capture and distill
`
`information related to physical and transition risks, severe weather
`
`events, severe natural conditions, and greenhouse gas emissions”).
`
`8
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court should proceed to a decision and vacate the
`
`climate rule as unlawful. The Court could first hold oral argument and
`
`then issue an opinion. Or the Court could proceed without oral argument
`
`and issue a summary opinion or order holding the rule unlawful on the
`
`merits and vacating it, which would satisfy Intervenors’ apparent desire
`
`to avoid oral argument. See In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking, 60 F.4th
`
`583, 594 (9th Cir. 2023) (court must hold regulation unlawful before
`
`vacating it); see also Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(3) (an order is required to
`
`vacate agency action).
`
`SEC’s decision to withdraw its defense of the climate rule confirms
`
`it is unlawful on the grounds Petitioners have raised and fully briefed.
`
`After years of agency proceedings and litigation, this Court should take
`
`the final step and provide much-needed certainty to the nation’s economy
`
`and publicly listed companies.
`
`B.
`
`
`Intervenor-Respondents’ authorities are inapposite.
`
`Intervenor-Respondents raise several distinguishable cases in their
`
`attempt to justify an indefinite abeyance here. First, they contend that
`
`this will give SEC time to “reconsider its action.” Mot. to Hold Case in
`
`Abeyance, at *4 (Apr. 4, 2025) (“Intervenors’ Abeyance Motion”) (citing
`
`9
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, 989 F.2d 522, 524 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). But SEC
`
`has not said here that it intends to reconsider its action. It has merely
`
`noted that it does not intend to argue in defense of the Rule. Given that
`
`Intervenor-Respondents remain in the case and are vigorously defending
`
`the Rule, the case remains in a clear adverse posture.
`
`Intervenor-Respondents’ reliance on Ethyl Corp. v. Browner shows
`
`why this Court should decline abeyance. There, the petitioner showed the
`
`respondent agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data that
`
`undermined a rule it had issued. 989 F.2d at 523. EPA asked the Court
`
`to remand so that it could reconsider its faulty rule. Id. at 524. The
`
`petitioner opposed the remand motion because it believed it was entitled
`
`to an automatic waiver of the rule. Id. After argument on whether
`
`remand was required, the Court remanded to EPA to reconsider the
`
`challenged rule. Id. Unlike here, that request came from the respondent
`
`agency itself. And unlike here, there was a hard 180-day timeline for a
`
`remedy following a remand. Id.
`
`Also, the challenged rule in Ethyl Corp. was 23 pages long and
`
`affected a waiver for one company. Id. at 523 (citing Fuels and Fuel
`
`Additives; Waiver Application, 57 Fed. Reg. 2535 (Jan. 22, 1992)). Left
`
`10
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`without any on-point cases, Intervenor-Respondents are left to twist
`
`inapposite cases to try to justify their novel ask. But a single-company
`
`waiver litigated under the strict framework of the Clean Air Act when
`
`the agency itself requested remand is quite different from the situation
`
`here. The Rule affects every public company (and, because of its
`
`downstream effects, likely many others). It imposes billions of dollars in
`
`costs. And SEC itself has not said that it seeks to amend the hundreds of
`
`pages of new rule. Cf. Intervenors’ Abeyance Motion, at *5 (citing West
`
`Virginia v. EPA, No. 24-1120, Doc. 210184 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 19, 2025)
`
`(granting EPA’s post-argument abeyance motion).
`
`Intervenor-Respondents tread new ground in explaining that a
`
`single member of a multi-member commission’s disagreement with a rule
`
`(that he voted against) justifies indefinite abeyance. Id. Indeed, they
`
`contend that it is “not a worthwhile use of this Court’s and the parties’
`
`time and resources to adjudicate these cases when the agency that
`
`promulgated the regulations has indicated that it is likely to amend or
`
`rescind them if upheld.” Id. But Petitioners disagree. Each Petitioner
`
`agrees that resolving this case is a worthwhile use of resources. And SEC
`
`does not disagree. Cf. id. Intervenor-Respondents even acknowledge that
`
`11
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`like every other party seeks this Court’s final resolution on the merits.
`
`Id. at *6 n.4. Cf. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344,
`
`349 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (denying the Federal Communication Commissions
`
`“novel, last second motion to remand” premised on “a post-argument
`
`‘policy statement,’” that did “not bind the Commission to a result in any
`
`particular case”).
`
`And courts have issued merits opinions before despite the federal
`
`government’s withdrawing its position. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S.
`
`Dept. of Health and Hum. Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2012) (“A delay
`
`in proceedings followed the Justice Department’s about face while
`
`defense of the statute passed to a group of Republican leaders of the
`
`House of Representatives—the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (‘the
`
`Legal Group’)—who retained counsel and intervened in the appeal to
`
`support section 3.”). The Rule, while stayed, is still in effect. And even
`
`though SEC is declining to defend the Rule going forward, Intervenor-
`
`Respondents here can keep adversity alive—including at argument.
`
`Intervenor-Respondents defending the Rule claim that “abeyance
`
`would not prejudice any party.” Intervenors’ Abeyance Motion at *6.
`
`Petitioners disagree—abeyance will cause significant prejudice to
`
`12
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`Petitioners. Intervenor-Respondents fail to recognize the huge costs that
`
`accompany compliance. And they fail to recognize that those costs cannot
`
`just be flipped like a switch. See, e.g., Romy Hammes, Inc. v. Comm’r, 68
`
`T.C. 900, 911 (1977) (noting how “recurring and protracted litigation” on
`
`an issue produced “uncertainty [that] impairs mobility of capital,
`
`increases compliance costs, and imposes inequities”). The Rule is
`
`voluntarily stayed during the pendency of the litigation, but the penalties
`
`in the rule became effective—but for the temporary voluntary stay—on
`
`May 28, 2024. Petitioners raise serious challenges that they believe
`
`should win the day—if they do not, the cost of compliance imposed on
`
`these companies will be enormous and almost immediate. The
`
`uncertainty and scope of the costs is huge enough to impose significant
`
`potential compliance prejudice on Petitioners as they wait for final
`
`resolution.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`All Petitioners agree—and SEC does not disagree—that this case
`
`should not be held in abeyance. Intervenor-Respondents intervened in
`
`this case to defend their interests and the Rule. This Court should not
`
`hold the case in indefinite abeyance and should instead allow Intervenor-
`
`13
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`Respondents to fulfill the promise of their intervention and proceed to
`
`final decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`April 14, 2025
`
`BRENNA BIRD
`Attorney General of Iowa
`
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER M. CARR
`Georgia Attorney General
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Petrany
`STEPHEN J. PETRANY
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General of
`Georgia
`40 Capitol Square, SW
`Atlanta, GA 30334
`(404) 458-3408
`spetrany@law.ga.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Georgia
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Eric Wessan
`ERIC WESSAN
`Solicitor General
`
`/s/ Patrick C. Valencia
`PATRICK C. VALENCIA
`Deputy Solicitor General
`
`Hoover State Office Building
`1305 East Walnut Street
`Des Moines, Iowa 50319
`(515) 823-9117 / (515) 281-5191
`(515) 281-4209 (fax)
`eric.wessan@ag.iowa.gov
`patrick.valencia@ag.iowa.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Iowa
`
`DAVE YOST
`
`
`Ohio Attorney General
`
`/s/ T. Elliot Gaiser
`T. ELLIOT GAISER
`Solicitor General
`MATHURA J. SRIDHARAN
`Deputy Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General
`365 East Broad Street
`Columbus, Ohio 43215
`Phone: (614) 466-8980
`thomas.gaiser@ohioago.gov
`
`Counsel for Ohio Bureau of
`Workers’ Compensation
`
`
`1
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN B. MCCUSKEY
`West Virginia Attorney General
`
`/s/ Michael R. Williams
`MICHAEL R. WILLIAMS
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General of
`West Virginia
`State Capitol Complex
`Building 1, Room E-26
`Charleston, WV 25301
`(304) 558-2021
`michael.r.williams@wvago.gov
`
`Counsel for State of West
`Virginia
`
`STEVE MARSHALL
`Alabama Attorney General
`
`/s/ Edmund G. LaCour Jr.
`EDMUND G. LACOUR JR.
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General
`State of Alabama
`501 Washington Avenue
`P.O. Box 300152
`Montgomery, AL 36130-0152
` (334) 242-7300
`Edmund.LaCour@AlabamaAG.g
`ov
`
`Counsel for State of Alabama
`
`TREG TAYLOR
`Alaska Attorney General
`
`/s/ William Milks
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM MILKS
`Assistant Attorney General
`BEN HOFMEISTER
`Assistant Attorney General
`Alaska Department of Law
`1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200
`Anchorage, AK 99501
`(907) 269-5100
`bill.milks@alaska.gov
`ben.hofmeister@alaska.gov
`
`
`Counsel for State of Alaska
`
`TIM GRIFFIN
`Arkansas Attorney General
`
`s/ Asher Steinberg
`ASHER STEINBERG
`Senior Assistant Solicitor
`General
`Office of the Arkansas Attorney
`General
`323 Center Street, Suite 200
`Little Rock, AR 72201
`(501) 682-1051
`asher.steinberg@ArkansasAG.go
`v
`
`Counsel for the State of Arkansas
`
`RAÚL R. LABRADOR
`Attorney General of Idaho
`
` /s/ Alan M. Hurst
`ALAN M. HURST
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Idaho Attorney
`General
`
`
`
`2
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`P.O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho
`83720 (208) 334-2400
`Alan.Hurst@ag.idaho.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Idaho
`
`THEODORE E. ROKITA
`Indiana Attorney General
`
`
`/s/ James A. Barta
`JAMES A. BARTA
`
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General of
`Indiana
`IGC South, Fifth Floor
`302 W. Washington St.
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`Telephone: (317) 232-0709
`James.Barta@atg.in.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Indiana
`
`RUSSELL COLEMAN
`Kentucky Attorney General
`
`/s/ Matthew F. Kuhn
`MATTHEW F. KUHN
`Solicitor General
`VICTOR B. MADDOX
`Counsel for Special Litigation
`JACOB M. ABRAHAMSON
`Assistant Solicitor General
`Office of Kentucky Attorney
`General
`700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
`Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
`Phone: (502) 696-5300
`Matt.Kuhn@ky.gov
`
`Victor.Maddox@ky.gov
`Jacob.Abrahamson@ky.gov
`
`Counsel for the Commonwealth
`of Kentucky
`
`LIZ MURRILL
`Attorney General of Louisiana
`
`/s/ J. Benjamin Aguiñaga
`J. BENJAMIN AGUIÑAGA
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Louisiana Attorney
`General
`1885 North Third Street
`Baton Rouge, LA 70804
`(225) 326-6766
`aguinagaj@ag.louisiana.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Louisiana
`
`LYNN FITCH
`Attorney General of Mississippi
`
`/s/ Justin L. Matheny
`JUSTIN L. MATHENY
`Deputy Solicitor General
`Mississippi Attorney General’s
`Office
`P.O. Box 220
`Jackson, MS 39205
`(601) 359-3680
`justin.matheny@ago.ms.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Mississippi
`
`
`
`
`3
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDREW T. BAILEY
`Missouri Attorney General
`
`
`/s/ Joshua M. Divine
`JOSHUA M. DIVINE, 69875MO
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General
`207 West High St.
`Jefferson City, MO 65101
`Phone: (573) 751-8870
`Josh.Divine@ago.mo.gov
`
`Counsel for the State of Missouri
`
`AUSTIN KNUDSEN
`Montana Attorney General
`
`/s/ Christian B. Corrigan
`CHRISTIAN B. CORRIGAN
`Solicitor General
`Montana Department of Justice
`215 North Sanders
`P.O. Box 201401
`Helena, Montana 59620-1401
`(406) 444-2026
`christian.corrigan@mt.gov
`
`Counsel for the State of Montana
`
`MICHAEL T. HILGERS
`Nebraska Attorney General
`
`/s/ Grant D. Strobl
`GRANT D. STROBL
`Assistant Solicitor General
`Office of the Nebraska Attorney
`General
`2115 State Capitol
`
`
`
`Lincoln, NE 68509
`(402) 471-2683
`Grant.Strobl@nebraska.gov
`
`
`Counsel for the State of Nebraska
`
`JOHN M. FORMELLA
`New Hampshire Attorney
`General
`
`/s/ Samuel R.V. Garland
`SAMUEL R.V. GARLAND
`Senior Assistant Attorney
`General
`New Hampshire Department of
`Justice
`1 Granite Place
`Concord, NH 03301
`(603) 271-3650
`samuel.rv.garland@doj.nh.gov
`
`Counsel for State of New
`Hampshire
`DREW H. WRIGLEY
`North Dakota Attorney General
`
`/s/ Philip Axt
`PHILIP AXT
`Solicitor General
`Office of Attorney General
`600 E. Boulevard Ave Dept. 125
`Bismarck ND 58505
`
`Phone: (701) 328-2210
`pjaxt@nd.gov
`
`
`Counsel for the State of North
`Dakota
`
`4
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 18 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENTNER DRUMMOND
`Oklahoma Attorney General
`
`/s/ Garry M. Gaskins, II
`GARRY M. GASKINS, II
`Solicitor General
`Office of the Attorney General of
`Oklahoma
`313 NE Twenty-First St.
`Oklahoma City, OK 73105
`(405) 521-3921
`garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Oklahoma
`
`ALAN WILSON
`South Carolina Attorney General
`
`/s/ Thomas T. Hydrick
`THOMAS T. HYDRICK
`Assistant Deputy Solicitor
`General
`Office of the South Carolina
`Attorney General
`1000 Assembly Street
`Columbia, SC 29201
`(803) 734-4127
`thomashydrick@scag.gov
`
`Counsel for State of South
`Carolina
`
`MARTY J. JACKLEY
`South Dakota Attorney General
`
`/s/ Paul S. Swedlund
`Paul S. Swedlund
`Solicitor General
`
`1302 East Highway 14, Suite 1
`Pierre, SD 57501-8501
`605-773-3215
`paul.swedlund@state.sd.us
`
`Counsel for the State of South
`Dakota
`
`JONATHAN SKRMETTI
`Tennessee Attorney General and
`Reporter
`
`J. MATTHEW RICE
`Solicitor General
`/s/ Whitney Hermandorfer
`WHITNEY HERMANDORFER
`Director of Strategic Litigation
`Office of the Attorney General
`and
`Reporter of Tennessee
`P.O. Box 20207
`Nashville, Tennessee 37202-0207
`Phone: (615) 741-3491
`matt.rice@ag.tn.gov
`
`Counsel for the State of
`Tennessee
`
`KEN PAXTON
`Attorney General of Texas
`BRENT WEBSTER
`First Assistant Attorney General
`RALPH MOLINA
`Deputy First Assistant Attorney
`General
`AUSTIN KINGHORN
`Deputy Attorney General for Civil
`Litigation
`
`5
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 19 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KELLIE E. BILLINGS-RAY
`Chief, Environmental Protection
`Division
`/s/ Wesley S. Williams
`WESLEY S. WILLIAMS
`Assistant Attorney General
`Office of the Attorney
`General of Texas
`Environmental Protection
`Division
`P.O. Box 12548, MC-066
`Austin, Texas 78711-2548
`(512) 463-2012
`Wesley.Williams@oag.texas.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Texas
`
`DEREK E. BROWN
`Utah Attorney General
`
`/s/ Stanford Purser
`STANFORD PURSER
`Solicitor General
`350 N. State Street, Suite 230
`P.O. Box 142320
`Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320
`Telephone: (801) 366-0533
`spurser@agutah.gov
`
`Counsel for the State of Utah
`
`JASON MIYARES
`Virginia Attorney General
`
`/s/ Kevin M. Gallagher
`KEVIN M. GALLAGHER
`Principal Deputy Solicitor
`General
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Virginia Attorney General’s
`Office
`202 North 9th Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`(804) 786-2071
`kgallagher@oag.state.va.us
`
`Counsel for Commonwealth of
`Virginia
`
`BRIDGET HILL
`Wyoming Attorney General
`
`/s/ Ryan Schelhaas
`RYAN SCHELHAAS
`Chief Deputy
`Office of the Attorney General of
`Wyoming
`109 State Capitol
`Cheyenne, WY 82002
`(307) 777-7895
`ryan.schelhaas@wyo.gov
`
`Counsel for State of Wyoming
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ R. Trent McCotter
`R. TRENT MCCOTTER
`JONATHAN BERRY
`MICHAEL BUSCHBACHER
`BOYDEN GRAY PLLC
`801 17th St. NW, Suite 350
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 706-5488
`tmccotter@boydengray.com
`
`Counsel for American Free
`Enterprise Chamber of
`Commerce
`
`
`
`6
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 20 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ R. Trent McCotter
`R. Trent McCotter
` Counsel of Record
`Jonathan Berry
`Michael Buschbacher
`Jared M. Kelson
`Boyden Gray PLLC
`800 Connecticut Ave. NW
`Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20006
`202-706-5488
`tmccotter@boydengray.com
`
`Katherine C. Yarger
`Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
`700 Colorado Blvd # 407
`Denver, CO 80206
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Liberty
`Energy Inc. and Nomad
`Proppant Services LLP
`
`/s/ Luke A. Wake
`Luke A. Wake
` Counsel of Record
`Cal. Bar No. 264647
`Pacific Legal Foundation
`555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`Telephone: (916) 419-7111
`Facsimile: (916) 419-7747
`
`
`
`LWake@pacificlegal.org
`
`Counsel for Texas Alliance of
`Energy Producers and Domestic
`Energy Producers Alliance
`
`
`/s/ James Baehr
`James Baehr
` Counsel of Record
`Sarah Harbison
`Pelican Institute for Public
`Policy
`400 Poydras Street, Suite
`900
`New Orleans, LA 70130
`504-475-8704
`james@pelicaninstitute.org
`
`Jacob Huebert
`Jeffrey M. Schwab
`Liberty Justice Center
`7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-
`250
`Austin, TX 78735
`512-481-4400
`jhuebert@ljc.org
`jschwab@ljc.org
`
`
`Counsel for National Legal and
`Policy Center and Oil and Gas
`Workers Association
`
`7
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 21 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(g) and Local R. 25A, I certify the
`
`following:
`
`1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R.
`
`App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 2,390 words, excluding those parts
`
`exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f).
`
`2. This brief complies with the typeface and type style requirements
`
`of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because the brief
`
`has been prepared in Century Schoolbook 14-point font using Microsoft
`
`Word for Microsoft Office 365.
`
`
`April 14, 2025
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric Wessan
`ERIC WESSAN
`Solicitor General
`
`Counsel for State of Iowa
`
`
`8
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 22 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing was filed with the Clerk using the
`
`appellate CM/ECF system on April 14, 2024. All counsel of record are
`
`registered CM/ECF users, and service will be accomplished by the
`
`CM/ECF system.
`
`
`April 14, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric Wessan
`ERIC WESSAN
`Solicitor General
`
`Counsel for State of Iowa
`
`
`
`9
`Appellate Case: 24-1522 Page: 23 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Entry ID: 5505965
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
