Choice Refrigerants v. EPA

SLF confronts unconstitutional delegation to EPA

About the Case

Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) and New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a lawsuit challenging the phase out of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a common refrigerant found in air conditioners and refrigerators, as mandated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act). In this case, SLF and NCLA represent Choice Refrigerants, a Georgia-based company that makes everyday household appliances.

Congress enacted the AIM Act in 2020. This new law directly threatens the existence of Choice. The AIM Act mandates the phasing out of HFCs in appliances through a cap-and-trade allowance scheme. But Congress provided no instructions to the Environmental Protection Agency on how to dole out the allowances under the cap-and-trade scheme. This left the EPA in a position to essentially write its own laws, circumventing separation of powers and the Constitution.

Read More

When it did so, the EPA devised a system that threatens Choice’s existence. The EPA chose to grant some allocations attributable to Choice’s products to a foreign-owned intellectual property pirate who illegally imported a knock-off version of Choice’s proprietary HFC product, and to Choice’s former business partner, rather than to Choice Refrigerants itself.

Choice now faces a life-or-death situation at the hands of its own government. It would be one thing if Congress mandated this under a law. Instead, this comes at the hands of a rudderless administrative agency who made its decisions about Choice’s fate without any accountability to the electorate.

Case Status

Active

Court

Northern District of Georgia

Why This Matters

When this Nation was founded, it deliberately divided power among the three branches of government. Only through separation of powers could the fundamental promise of liberty be safeguarded against a central government. Increasingly though, it is not through the legislative branch—Congress—passing laws formed by the peoples’ elected representatives that our laws are passed, but through executive branch agencies.

It is perfectly acceptable for Congress to pass a law and delegate to an agency to fill in the details. But it cannot delegate to the agency the power to write its own laws. To do so violates the vital separation of powers doctrine.

The fate of Choice’s business should not depend on the arbitrary decisions of an unguided agency. The courts must ensure that any delegation to the EPA contains proper guidance from the one branch of government accountable to the American people.

Braden Boucek, SLF Director of Litigation explained,

“When Congress wants to make war on the modern conveniences that we all use to make our lives better, it needs to be accountable for that decision. Separation of powers isn’t an inconvenience. It is a constitutional command. Congressional efforts to shift responsibility to other branches of government do not fool the American people about who is making their lives more uncomfortable and expensive.”

Why This Matters

When this Nation was founded, it deliberately divided power among the three branches of government. Only through separation of powers could the fundamental promise of liberty be safeguarded against a central government. Increasingly though, it is not through the legislative branch—Congress—passing laws formed by the peoples’ elected representatives that our laws are passed, but through executive branch agencies.

It is perfectly acceptable for Congress to pass a law and delegate to an agency to fill in the details. But it cannot delegate to the agency the power to write its own laws. To do so violates the vital separation of powers doctrine.

The fate of Choice’s business should not depend on the arbitrary decisions of an unguided agency. The courts must ensure that any delegation to the EPA contains proper guidance from the one branch of government accountable to the American people.

Braden Boucek, SLF Director of Litigation explained,

“When Congress wants to make war on the modern conveniences that we all use to make our lives better, it needs to be accountable for that decision. Separation of powers isn’t an inconvenience. It is a constitutional command. Congressional efforts to shift responsibility to other branches of government do not fool the American people about who is making their lives more uncomfortable and expensive.”

Case Documents

Complaint (Oct. 4, 2023)

News Releases

No related releases found.

Share This