Justices Appear Split On Case Testing Eligibility Of EPA Acting Officials

摘要

Supreme Court justices appear split on whether to uphold a ruling that would bar several acting officials at EPA and other agencies from continuing to serve after being nominated to fill their positions permanently, which could lead to a 4-4 decision that would sustain the lower court's decision while offering no new guidance on how to resolve the issue. The case tests whether the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) blocks any acting official who did not spend at least 90 days as the "first assistant" to the prior office-holder from continuing to serve after being nominated to fill the same position permanently. Although the case does not directly impact EPA, Sen. James Inhofe (R-QK) has suggested that the case could undermine some actions taken by acting Deputy EPA Administrator Stan Meiburg. During Nov. 7 oral argument in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. SW General, conservatives on the court appeared skeptical of Acting Solicitor General Ian H. Gershengorn's defense of a narrow limitation on nominees for an administration slot also being able to serve as acting officials for the same position, while the four liberal justices generally backed the government's argument as being more logical than a broader reading of the law.