Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
160 bytes removed ,  01:50, July 28, 2021
Line 18: Line 18:     
We acknowledge that our conclusion—that the Clean Air Act does not prevent the two counties from enforcing their regulations against Volkswagen for tampering with post-sale vehicles—may result in the imposition of unexpected (and enormous) liability on Volkswagen. But that result is caused by the unusual and perhaps unprecedented situation before us. In drafting the Clean Air Act, Congress apparently did not contemplate that a manufacturer would intentionally tamper with the emission control systems of its vehicles after sale in order to improve the functioning of a device intended to deceive the regulators. In other words, Volkswagen faces liability due to the straightforward application of the Clean Air Act and the preemption doctrine to its unexpected and aberrant conduct. We may not strain to give Volkswagen the equivalent of a release from state and local liability (which it did not secure for itself) by engaging in a "freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives; such an endeavor would undercut the principle that it is Congress rather than the courts that pre-empts state law." Whiting, 563 U.S. at 607 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)}}
 
We acknowledge that our conclusion—that the Clean Air Act does not prevent the two counties from enforcing their regulations against Volkswagen for tampering with post-sale vehicles—may result in the imposition of unexpected (and enormous) liability on Volkswagen. But that result is caused by the unusual and perhaps unprecedented situation before us. In drafting the Clean Air Act, Congress apparently did not contemplate that a manufacturer would intentionally tamper with the emission control systems of its vehicles after sale in order to improve the functioning of a device intended to deceive the regulators. In other words, Volkswagen faces liability due to the straightforward application of the Clean Air Act and the preemption doctrine to its unexpected and aberrant conduct. We may not strain to give Volkswagen the equivalent of a release from state and local liability (which it did not secure for itself) by engaging in a "freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives; such an endeavor would undercut the principle that it is Congress rather than the courts that pre-empts state law." Whiting, 563 U.S. at 607 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)}}
−
''Salt Lake Cty. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. (In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.)'', 959 F.3d 1201, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2020) ''Salt Lake Cty. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. (In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.)'', 959 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020)
+
''Salt Lake Cty. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. (In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.)'', 959 F.3d 1201, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2020)).  
    
A petition for [[writ of certiorari]] was filed by [[Volkswagen]] on January 21, 2021, No. 20-994.  The Court requested the opinion of the Biden Administration.
 
A petition for [[writ of certiorari]] was filed by [[Volkswagen]] on January 21, 2021, No. 20-994.  The Court requested the opinion of the Biden Administration.
 +
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
    
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
 
[[category:cars]]
 
[[category:cars]]
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Navigation menu