First-of-a-kind US class-action lawsuit would force EPA to reinstate $3bn climate program
A coalition of non-profits, tribes and local governments is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the agency's administrator, Lee Zeldin, for terminating the entire Environmental and Climate Justice (ECJ) block grant program – despite a legally binding mandate from Congress to fund the Biden-era initiative.
It's a first-of-a-kind proposed class-action lawsuit that would force the EPA and Zeldin to reinstate the program and each individual grant, rather than forcing the recipients to sue individually.
The $3bn ECJ program was created by Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – a longstanding source for ire for Trump and his polluting industry allies – to help historically disadvantaged communities come up with local solutions to improve resilience in the face of worsening climate shocks and environmental degradation.
It was intended by Congress to fund community-based projects across the country to tackle longstanding and pressing environmental harms that cause death and ill health from hazards including industrial pollution, lead pipes, flooding and urban heat islands. Almost 350 rural and urban groups, towns and tribes were selected by the EPA from 2,700 applicants, through a rigorous process that included long-term accountability and oversight over the funds.
In February, Zeldin's EPA, under the direction of the Trump administration, began terminating the entire ECJ program, as part of a broader assault on climate science, climate action and environmental justice measures.
In June, 23 grant recipients sued after the entire block grant was terminated and the funds frozen overnight.
The plaintiffs come from every region of the country and include the Indigenous village of Pipnuk in Alaska, the Deep South Centre for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, Appalachian Voices, which works with legacy coal communities, and Kalamazoo county in Michigan.
Several non-profit legal advocacy groups – EarthJustice, Southern Environmental Law Center, Public Rights Project and Lawyers for Good Government – filed the proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the wholesale termination violated the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional. They also argue that the Trump administration's decision was both 'arbitrary and capricious' – in other words, made without proper reasoning or consideration of the consequences, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
On Tuesday, attorneys representing the coalition will argue for preliminary relief at the US district court for the District of Columbia (DDC), to force the EPA to immediately reinstate the ECJ program and unfreeze the funds.
'This was an unlawful action that went against the will of Congress and violated the separation of powers,' said Ben Grillot, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. 'The administration terminated the entire program simply because they don't like it, without any reasoned decision making or consideration of the impacts. The decision was both arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional, and should be overturned.'
The Trump administration has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the DDC does not have jurisdiction, and this is a contractual case for the US court of federal claims. Under contract law, the 349 grant recipients would be forced to sue individually for breach of contract and damages, but with no possibility of the ECJ program being reinstated as Congress intended.
A ruling on if and where the case continues is expected later this month. The judge will rule separately on the plaintiffs' motion for the case to proceed as a class action.
The EPA said it did not comment on pending litigation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chris Cuomo trolled for falling for AOC deepfake video about Sydney Sweeney
NewsNation host Chris Cuomo is being trolled on social media after falling for a deepfake video purporting to show New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez discussing the Sydney Sweeney jeans furore on the House floor. Cuomo posted an Instagram video on his X account on Wednesday – believing it to be real, having apparently not noticed its watermark admitting that the clip was 'parody 100% made with AI ' – that showed 'AOC' arguing that Sweeney's new American Eagle commercial, in which she declares that she has 'great jeans', a pun on 'genes,' is racist. Accompanying the post, the anchor wrote in a fever of righteous indignation: 'Nothing about hamas or people burning jews cars. But sweeney jeans ad? Deserved time on floor of congress? What happd to this party? Fight for small business …not for small culture wars.' In addition to the watermark and the fact that Congress is not in session, Cuomo was also not skeptical of the language used by 'AOC' in the video. 'Sydney Sweeney looks like an Aryan goddess, and the American Eagle jeans campaign is blatant Nazi propaganda,' the AI Ocasio-Cortez tells Congress. 'I mean, f***. Watching that sultry little temptress squeeze into a Canadian tuxedo three sizes too small with her bouncy little funbags on the screen staring at you, piercing through the core of your soul with those ocean-blue eyes that could resurrect the Fuhrer from his grave in Argentina, is something that should alarm every American citizen because in America, beauty is not defined by whiteness. 'Oh no, it is defined by the number of victim groups of which you are a member, skinny, attractive, blonde-haired, blue-eyed cisgender women descended from the slave daddy oppressors of this nation. And any man who [masturbates] while thinking about a woman like this probably hates Black people, probably hates gay people, and they certainly hate the diversity of our great nation.' The fake representative concludes her rousing address by declaring: 'So I say, instead of simping for the Sidneys, we should be celebrating the Shaniquas. Instead of worshipping the hot, straight blonde, what about the obese alpha? People with blue hair. They need love too. And to all the haters who say companies that go woke go broke, I'd rather be poor than a f*****g Nazi.' One of the first to call out the credulous Cuomo over the blunder was the real Ocasio-Cortez, who told him: 'This is a deepfake dude. Please use your critical thinking skills. At this point, you're just reposting Facebook memes and calling it journalism.' The journalist took down the post in question and responded: 'You are correct… that was a deepfake (but it really does sound like you). Thank you for correcting. But now to the central claim: show me you calling on hamas to surrender or addressing the bombing of a car in st louis belonging to the idf american soldier?…dude?' Ocasio-Cortez replied in withering style: 'You seem to struggle with knowing how to write an apology. Do you need help? Maybe you should call someone.' The anchor later addressed the controversy on his show, admitting his mistake while also doubling down on his attack on the congresswoman for supposedly ignoring issues in the Middle East and underachieving as a legislator. The attempted pivot did not shield him from further criticism, with Piers Morgan posting: 'Oh dear Chris Cuomo – perhaps spend less time bitching about me and more time trying to spot obvious fakes.' Tim Miller of The Bulwark commented: 'It doesn't augur well for our societal AI future if a professional news anchor gets tricked by a video that has a '100% parody' watermark.' Mike Isaacs, tech reporter for The New York Times, said the incident provided an ample demonstration of why he is 'increasingly convinced we need to administer the equivalent of drivers license tests for access to the internet every five years, forever.' Cuomo was not the only person taken in by the deepfake. Some commentators responding to the original video likewise assumed it was real and accused Ocasio-Cortez of being 'jealous' of Sweeney's beauty.
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why did Ghislaine Maxwell do what she did?
Days after Ghislaine Maxwell met with the deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, the convicted child sex trafficker and longtime Jeffrey Epstein girlfriend and procurer was moved from a women's federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida, to a so-called 'prison camp' in Texas, a dramatically more comfortable minimum-security environment with dormitory-style housing and fewer guards, sometimes called 'Club Fed'. Maxwell's new camp primarily houses nonviolent offenders, and the inmates there are reportedly livid, and probably not a little bit frightened, to be imprisoned with one of the world's most notorious sex traffickers and alleged rapists. Maxwell, too, was not initially eligible for such a transfer, due to her sex offender status; connections at the Department of Justice had to waive a procedural requirement in order for the move to go through. The transfer appears to be a reward. As Donald Trump struggles to extract himself from the continuing fallout of the Epstein scandal, Maxwell finds herself, now, in the best position that she has been in since her one-time partner Epstein died in a jail cell in 2019. Suddenly, she has something that the president wants: the ability to say, truthfully or no, that Trump had nothing to do with Epstein's sex trafficking. The president, too, has something that Maxwell wants: the ability to issue a pardon. Maxwell has always formed the dark center of the Epstein saga, a woman who appears to have been exceptionally dedicated to arranging Epstein's life, facilitating his travel, luring new victims to his homes, and coordinating his sexual abuse over the course of decades. Alleged victims of Epstein recall being recruited by Maxwell in public places – including at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach – and through friends. They say that she inspected their bodies, brought them to Epstein's homes, talked incessantly about sex, and instructed them in Epstein's sexual preferences. They also say that Epstein and Maxwell sometimes made them available for sexual abuse by their friends. She is widely presumed to know more than she has yet been willing to tell about the extent to which Epstein's large network of powerful businessmen, politicians, and financiers knew about or participated in his rapes and trafficking of children. What is less clear, at least at first, is what motivated her to facilitate the abuse, and what kept her so loyal to Epstein over so many years. Maybe this kind of life – one spent attending to men's lesser desires – was always what Maxwell was destined for. The ninth and youngest child of a British media magnate, Maxwell was doted on by her father, the Hungarian-born Robert Maxwell, and raised in Oxford in a family as obscenely wealthy as it was darkly tragic: one of her older brothers was in a hideous car accident just days after Ghislaine's birth, and the boy lingered in a coma for years before dying before her 10th birthday. Her father financed her life as a high-class party girl – first in London, and then in New York – where she spent much of her time accompanying famous and wealthy men to the kind of rich people's social functions that have a pretext of raising money for charity. She does not seem to have had aims beyond that: despite her ample resources and encouragement, Ghislaine never showed much sign of intellectual ambition, or political interest, or business acumen, or general curiosity. (A short-lived 'ocean protection' charity that she founded accomplished little, and shut down after her arrest on sex trafficking charges.) It was not merely that Ghislaine was a product of an elite unburdened by principle, who often reduce their daughters to mere ornaments. It is that an ornament, it seems, is all that Ghislaine Maxwell ever aspired to be. It was not her charity, or her father's publishing, that were Maxwell's great passions. Her great passion appears to have been for the romantic attention of men – and specifically, her life's greatest animating goal seems to have been to achieve, and keep, the attention of Jeffrey Epstein. From those accounts we have of their relationship – and admittedly, these are not always reliable, given how intense, widespread, and prurient the attention on their activities has been – it appears that Maxwell's devotion to Epstein was intense. At her trial in 2021, prosecutors entered into evidence a photo of a cleavage-bearing Maxwell with Epstein, massaging his foot. This seems to have been her posture toward Epstein for the entire time she knew him: slavish, nearly worshipful. The pair met sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Maxwell's father, Robert, died in an apparent suicide in the ocean off the coast of the Canary Islands – aboard his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine – in late 1991. Soon thereafter, it was discovered that millions of dollars were missing from pension funds that he managed; two of Maxwell's brothers were charged for their alleged role in the fraud. (They were later acquitted.) It was during this moment of rupture and imperiled status that Maxwell was romantically involved with Epstein. Her boyfriend would have served as a meal ticket as well as a source of validation: Maxwell is alleged to have received payments from Epstein totaling more than $30m; she told one of her victims that he bought her her New York City townhouse, just a few blocks from his own. By 1994, she was recruiting and grooming teenagers for his sexual abuse. Maybe Maxwell justified what she did for Epstein as kink – a kind of sexual libertinism that shrugged off the regressive, prurient mores of the lower classes. The 90s were the peak of a kind of reductive heterosexual sex-positivity: lots of women were telling themselves, and being told, that sexual submission was a mark of sophistication – that the more liberated they were, the more of men's desires they would grant. But this is all speculation: trying to provide a rationalization for Ghislaine Maxwell's actions evades the true terror of her, which is her seemingly profound and horrifying vacancy. To such a person, obedience does not require a justification. Unequal desire in love – particularly when the suffering lover is a woman – tends to elicit a kind of pity. Feminists, too, often depict women's outsized desire for men as a form of gendered victimization. Generally, it is not seen as serious – women's limerence, romantic obsession, and striving for men's attention is broadly relegated to the realm of the adolescent and the vulgar, the embarrassing and the silly. But Maxwell's case suggests such desire can breed not just frustrated vanity but also a kind of monstrousness. Untempered by principle or self-respect, it can contain in it the seed of the grotesque. In her efforts to please Epstein, and to make herself useful to him, Maxwell became something hideous and unforgivable. In her deficient, warped soul, it seems she lacked something that every woman must have: a morality that she valued more than male approval. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's higher tariffs hit major US trading partners, sparking defiance and concern
Aug 7 (Reuters) - U.S. trade partners such as Switzerland, Brazil and India were still scrambling to get a better deal on Thursday as President Donald Trump's higher tariff rates on imports from dozens of countries kicked in, raising the average U.S. import duty to its highest in a century. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency began collecting the higher tariffs of 10% to 50% at 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) after weeks of suspense over Trump's final tariff rates and frantic negotiations with major trading partners that sought to lower them. The leaders of Brazil and India vowed not to be cowed by Trump's hardline bargaining position, even while their negotiators sought a reprieve from the highest tariff levels. The new rates will test Trump's strategy for shrinking U.S. trade deficits without causing massive disruptions to global supply chains or provoking higher inflation and stiff retaliation from trading partners. After unveiling his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, Trump has frequently modified his plan, slapping much higher rates on imports from some countries, including 50% for goods from Brazil, 39% from Switzerland, 35% from Canada and 25% from India. He announced on Wednesday a separate, 25% tariff on Indian goods, to be imposed in 21 days, over India's purchases of Russian oil. "RECIPROCAL TARIFFS TAKE EFFECT AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!," Trump said on Truth Social just ahead of the deadline. "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LARGELY FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MANY YEARS, LAUGHING ALL THE WAY, WILL START FLOWING INTO THE USA. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN STOP AMERICA'S GREATNESS WOULD BE A RADICAL LEFT COURT THAT WANTS TO SEE OUR COUNTRY FAIL!" Tariffs are ultimately paid by companies importing the goods and consumers of end products. Eight major trading partners accounting for about 40% of U.S. trade flows have reached framework deals for trade and investment concessions to Trump, including the European Union, Japan and South Korea, reducing their base tariff rates to 15%. Britain won a 10% rate, while Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines secured rate reductions to 19% or 20%. "For those countries, it's less-bad news," said William Reinsch, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There'll be some supply chain rearrangement. There'll be a new equilibrium. Prices here will go up, but it'll take a while for that to show up in a major way," Reinsch said. Countries with punishingly high duties, such as India and Canada, "will continue to scramble around trying to fix this," he added. Switzerland's government will hold an emergency meeting on Thursday to decide its next move after President Karin Keller-Sutter returned home empty-handed from an 11th-hour trip to Washington aimed at averting the crippling U.S. import tariff on Swiss goods. A last-minute attempt by South Africa to improve its offer in exchange for a lower tariff rate also failed. Meanwhile, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters on Wednesday he wouldn't humiliate himself by seeking a phone call with Trump even as he said his government would continue cabinet-level talks to lower a 50% tariff rate on Brazilian exports to the U.S. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was similarly defiant, saying he would not compromise the interests of the country's farmers after Trump introduced a 50% tariff on Indian goods. Trump's order has specified that any goods determined to have been transshipped from a third country to evade higher U.S. tariffs will be subject to an additional 40% import duty, but his administration has released few details on how these goods would be identified or the provision enforced. U.S. import taxes are one part of a multilayered tariff strategy that includes national security-based sectoral tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, autos, steel, aluminum, copper, lumber and other goods. Trump said on Wednesday the microchip duties could reach 100%. China is on a separate tariff track and will face a potential tariff increase on August 12 unless Trump approves an extension of a prior truce after talks last week in Sweden. He has said he may impose additional tariffs over China's purchases of Russian oil as he seeks to pressure Moscow into ending its war in Ukraine. Trump has touted a vast increase in federal revenues from his import tax collections, with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying tariff revenues could top $300 billion a year. The move will drive average U.S. tariff rates to around 20%, the highest in a century and up from 2.5% when Trump took office in January, the Atlantic Institute estimates. Commerce Department data released last week showed more evidence that tariffs began driving up U.S. prices in June, including for home furnishings and durable household equipment, recreational goods and motor vehicles. Costs from Trump's tariff war are mounting for a wide swath of companies, including bellwethers Caterpillar, Marriott, Molson Coors and Yum Brands. Toyota on Thursday said it expected a hit of nearly $10 billion from tariffs on cars imported into the U.S. as it cut its full-year profit forecast by 16%.
