Over Heated Dissent, Ninth Circuit Rejects Rehearing in Low Carbon Fuel Standards Challenge, Setting Up Possible Supreme Court Commerce Clause Showdown
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today rejected petitions for rehearing of its decision in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, the opinion issued last September which rejected constitutional challenges to California's low-carbon fuel standard. Seven judges dissented from the decision and took the unusual step of publishing their dissent which, in strongly-worded language, accused the majority of disregarding "longstanding dormant Commerce Clause doctrine" and placing the circuit "squarely at odds with Supreme Court precedent." This prompted Judge Ronald Gould to take the equally unusual step of issuing a written opinion defending the majority's decision to deny the petitions for rehearing.
As we have previously discussed, last fall, the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 split decision, upheld California's low-carbon fuel standard against challenges brought by out-of-state ethanol manufacturers, farmers, and allied interests. The challengers argued that, by using a geographically-based system for assessing the carbon footprint of different sources of ethanol and assigning higher default scores to Mid-Western producers than to California producers, California's system discriminated on its face against these out-of-state producers, and therefore violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under a doctrine known as the "dormant Commerce Clause," the courts have long held that states are prohibited from imposing constraints on interstate commerce that discriminate against out-of-state economic interests and artificially favor in-state interests. The panel's majority concluded that the low-carbon fuel standard is not facially discriminatory because California's system for assessing the carbon footprint of different ethanol sources is based on objective scientific evidence rather than on impermissible discrimination against out-of-state producers. Nonetheless, the Court remanded the case to the trial court to review evidence that might prove whether the low-carbon fuel standard discriminates against out-of-state producers in practice.