Alliance for Clean Coal v. Bayh case brief summary
72 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 1995)
72 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendants, governor and
state utility regulatory commission, sought review of the order from
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, which granted a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff trade
association in a suit challenging the Indiana Environmental
Compliance Plans Act, Ind. Code §§ 8-1-27- 6(b)(6), 8-1-27-8(1)(D),
8-1-27-20).
CASE FACTS: Plaintiff trade association filed suit against defendants, governor and state utility regulatory commission, challenging portions of the Indiana Environmental Compliance Plans Act (ECPA), Ind. Code §§ 8-1-27- 6(b)(6), 8-1-27-8(1)(D), 8-1-27-20). The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of trade association.
DISCUSSION
CASE FACTS: Plaintiff trade association filed suit against defendants, governor and state utility regulatory commission, challenging portions of the Indiana Environmental Compliance Plans Act (ECPA), Ind. Code §§ 8-1-27- 6(b)(6), 8-1-27-8(1)(D), 8-1-27-20). The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of trade association.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court affirmed the order granting a
summary judgment in favor of trade association and held that the ECPA
violated the commerce clause because it discriminated against
interstate commerce. The court found that the ECPA discriminated
against interstate commerce based solely upon geographic origin, and
that the clear intent of the statute was to benefit the state's coal
industry. The court determined that governor and state utility
regulatory commission had not discharged their burden of
demonstrating that the statute served a legitimate and compelling
interest unrelated to economic protectionism.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the order granting a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff trade association in a suit challenging the validity of a state environmental plan. The court held that the environmental plan of defendants, governor and state utility regulatory commission, violated the commerce clause because it discriminated against interstate commerce.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the order granting a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff trade association in a suit challenging the validity of a state environmental plan. The court held that the environmental plan of defendants, governor and state utility regulatory commission, violated the commerce clause because it discriminated against interstate commerce.
No comments:
Post a Comment