S Answer Brief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Filing # 116380988 E-Filed 11/09/2020 04:10:48 PM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT DELANEY REYNOLDS, et. al., Appellants, v. CASE NO.: 1D20-2036 THE STATE OF FLORIDA; RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et. al., Appellees. / __________________________________________________________________ ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEES, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, NOAH VALENSTEIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND __________________________________________________________________ JUSTIN G. WOLFE General Counsel JEFFREY BROWN, FBN 843430 KELLEY CORBARI, FBN 103692 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL RECEIVED, 11/09/202004:11:37 PM,Clerk,First District CourtofAppeal STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Telephone (850) 245-2007 Facsimile (850) 245-2298 Email: [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii GLOSSARY OF BRIEF REFERENCES ...............................................................vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS......................................................... 1 I. THE COURT SHOULD REJECT PLAINTIFFS’ EFFORT TO CREATE A NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. .................................... 1 A. THE COURT SHOULD ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZE THE ASSERTED RIGHT. .............................................................. 2 B. THE COURT SHOULD NOT, IN THE GUISE OF INTERPRETING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, ADOPT NEW REGULATORY PROGRAMS OR CREATE POLICIES ON ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. ........................................................................................ 4 II. FDEP HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER REGULATION OR GREENHOUSE GASES, AND THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT UNDER THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE. ............................................................. 9 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE..................................................................... 16 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272 (1994) .......................................................... 4 Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 254 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ...................................................................... 3 Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 796 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ..................................................................... 10 Clean Air Council v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 3d 237(E.D. Pa. 2019) ................ 8 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) ............. 5 Dep’t of Law Enf’t v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991). .............................. 4 Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971) ............................................................ 8 E.P.A. v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014); .................. 10 Fed. Emp. for Non-Smokers’ Rights v. United States, 446 F. Supp. 181(D.D.C. 1978) .............................................................................. 8 Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk, 783 So. 2d 1029 (2001) ................................................... 9, 12 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n v. Pringle, 838 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ....................................................................... 9 In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 475 F.Supp. 928 (E.D.N.Y. 1979) .............. 8 In re Florida Power and Light Co., Case No. 17-4388-EPP (Fla. DOAH July 20, 2018) (Recommended Order), adopted as modified, DEP Case No. 17-0922 (Fla. Siting Board December 13, 2018) ......................................................................... 13 In re: Tampa Electric Company, Case No. 18-2124-EPP (Fla. DOAH May 30, 2019) (Recommended Order), adopted as modified, DEP Case No. 18-0198, (Fla. Siting Board July 29, 2012) .................................................................................. 13 iii Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016) ................................. 8 Juliana v. United States, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1062 (D. Or. 2018) ............................... 8 Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................... 8 Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Internal Imp. Tr. Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982). ......................................................................... 13 Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir.1996) ........................................................ 5 Lake v. City of Southgate, No. 16-10251, 2017 WL 767879, at *3–4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2017) ..................................................................................... 8 Lindquist v. Woronka, 706 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ................................... 5 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) ................................................... 1, 4, 6, 7 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ...................................................... 10 Pinkney v. Ohio Envtl. Prot. Agency, 375 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974) .............. 8 SF Chapter of A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. U.S. EPA, No. 07-4936, 2008 WL 859985, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2008) ................................................. 8 Silvio Membreno & Florida Ass’n of Vendors, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 188 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). ......................................................................... 7 Tanner v. Armco Steel Corp., 340 F. Supp. 532 (S.D. Tex. 1972) ........................... 8 iv Florida Statutes § 120.536, Fla. Stat. .............................................................................................. 13 § 120.54(7), Fla. Stat....................................................................................... 12, 13 § 120.68, Fla. Stat. ................................................................................................ 12 § 403.061(36), Fla. Stat. ........................................................................................ 10 § 403.502, Fla. Stat. .............................................................................................. 11 § 403.504(10), Fla. Stat. ........................................................................................ 12 Agency Rules Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-204.800 .......................................................................... 10 Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-204.800(3)(b) ................................................................. 11 Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-204.800(8)(b)88 ............................................................. 11 Additional Authorities Jamal Greene, The Anticanon, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 379 (2011) ................................. 6 v GLOSSARY OF BRIEF REFERENCES The following abbreviations/references will be used in this Answer Brief: Abbreviation/Reference Description of Abbreviation/Reference FDEP Appellees, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and Noah Valenstein as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection BOT Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida State Parties All Appellees other than FDEP, BOT, and the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (i.e. the State of Florida and parties joining the brief of the State of Florida) Plaintiffs All Appellants Greenhouse Gases Carbon dioxide and other substances contributing to global warming, commonly referred to as “GHGs” Amended Complaint Plaintiffs’ “Supplemental First Amended Complaint,” located at page 702 of the Record on Appeal I.B. Appellant’s Initial Brief [R. X at Y] Citation to the record, with volume and page number [T. X at Y] Citation to the transcript, with volume and page number Unless stated otherwise, all citations to the Florida Statutes are intended to refer to the Florida Statutes (2020). vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS FDEP and BOT adopt the Statement of the Case and of the Facts included with the Answer Brief of the State Parties. I. THE COURT SHOULD REJECT PLAINTIFFS’ EFFORT TO CREATE A NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. FDEP and BOT join in the position asserted by the State Parties in their separate answer brief and respectfully submit that the order of dismissal should be affirmed for the reasons stated in that brief. The purpose of this brief is to elaborate on related issues that would support the same request for relief. Plaintiffs present, as a foregone conclusion, that freedom from climate change is a fundamental right within the context of substantive due process. From this premise, they leap to the unsupported conclusion that the Court must expand subject matter jurisdiction and direct the lower court to disregard the political question doctrine. In their separate Answer Brief, the State Parties show that the assertion of a new constitutional right has no bearing on whether the circuit court appropriately dismissed the complaint. In addition, Plaintiffs’ premise is emphatically wrong. There is no