1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenges to CAFO Air Consent Agreements

D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenges to CAFO Air Consent Agreements

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.17.07

The D.C. Circuit today dismissed all petitions that challenged the legality of the 2,568 Animal Feeding Operations Air Consent Agreements between EPA and thousands of animal farms across the country. The petitions were brought by several citizen activist groups (including the Sierra Club and the Association of Irritated Residents) and asserted that the air consent agreements were rules, not enforcement agreements, and that the agreements (and the legal protections they provided) were invalid because they did not comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

The D.C. Circuit rejected the petitions on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the agreements are not rules but are "enforcement actions within EPA's statutory authority." Because "exercises of EPA's enforcement discretion are not reviewable," the court dismissed the petitions.

Crowell & Moring attorneys represented Intervenors National Pork Producers Council and Roe Farms, Inc. in the litigation.

For a copy of the D.C. Circuit's opinion, click here.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26

The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs....

View All Insights