FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 28, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 53 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 4- cv -2 14 48 -ASG Inre: USA, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, EPA, Reg io n IV, ADMINISTRATOR, EPA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ On Pe ti ti on forWritof M an da m us to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re CARNES, PRYOR, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e: The Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy pe ti ti on s t hi s C ou rt f

or a writof m an da m us to subs ti tu te th e ap pe aran ce o f th e Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r fo r W at er o fth e Age nc y , Pet er Si lv a, fo r th e ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r of th e Age nc y , Lis a Ja ck so n, ata he ari ng ab ou t co m pl ia nc e b y

th e Age nc y

with o rd ers en te redby th e d is tri ctco urt tha t co nc ernpo ll ut io n o f th e Eve rg la de s. Th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edth e m ot io n fo r subs ti tu ti on an d o rd eredth e ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r who is a hi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia l o f th e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h. Se e 5 U.S.C. § 5 31 3. Th e Age nc y arg ue s t ha t co m

pe ll in g ahi gh ex ecu ti ve off ic ia l t o app ear i n ajud ic ia l pr oc eed in g e nc ro ach es on th e se pa rat io n o f po wers an d, ab se ntex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , th e jud ic ia l b ran ch m us t re sp ectth e d is cret io n o f th e ex ecu ti ve br an ch to de si gn at e whi ch hi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia l s ho ul d re pr es en t the Agen cy in a jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g. Th e rec or d e st ab li sh es no sp eci al ne edforco m pe ll in g t he ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r; t he Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r is anad equa te subs ti tu te . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y co m pe ll in g t he ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r, an d t he re i s n o o th er ad equa te rem edy av ai labl e, we GRANT th e p et it io n fo r a wri t o f m an da m us an d d ire ctth e d is tri ctco urt t o al lo w th e subs ti tu ti on . I. BACKG ROUND The Ever gl ad es is th e la rg es t s ub tro pi cal wetl an ds inth e Uni te d S ta te s. It s ch arac te ris ti c sh al lo w andsl ow- m ov in g wat ers on ce co ve redalm os t 1 1,0 00 squa re m il es of s ou th ernFlo rid a. Thi s d el ic at el y ba lanc edeco syste m , whi ch de ve lo pe d 2ov er tho us an ds of years , has be endi sturbe d i n re cen t d ecad es by econ om ic

de ve lo pm en t, an d l it ig at io n abo utth e p ol lu ti oncau se d b y th atde ve lo pm en t i s n ow co m m on . See, e.g ., Mic co su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a. v. Un it edSta te s, 5 66 F.3d 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The wate rs of t he Ever gl ad es na tu ral ly con ta in lo w lev el s o f ph os ph orus an d ot he r nu tri en ts , bu t wat er ru no ff fro m ad jacen t fa rm s co nt ai ns hi gh lev el s o f ph os ph orus . Over t im e, th is run of f ha s al te reddra st ic al ly the ch em ic al co m po si ti on of t he su rfac e wat ers of t he Ever gl ad es . The p res en ce o f ph os ph orus in th es e wat ers ha s caus edth e g ro wthof n on -n at iv e p la ntsp eci es , su ch as c at ta il s, an d t he di m in is hm en t o f na ti ve sp eci es , su ch as s aw gr as s. As p artof t he effo rt t o p res erv e th e n atur al qu al it ie s o f wat er i n t he Eve rg la de s, the Flo rid a Leg is la tu re en act edth e Eve rg la de s Fo rev er Actin19 94 , Fl a. St at . § 3 73 .45 92 . The Fl or id a Leg is la tu re am en de d t he Act i n 2 00 3, 2 00 3 F la . Laws ch s. 1 2, 3 94 , andth e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n ad op te d aph os ph orus rul e in 20 05 , Fla . Adm in . Cod e Ann . rr. 62 -3 02 .53 0, 6 2- 30 2.5 40 (20 05 ). Bo th th e am en dm en t an d the rul e ch an ge d t he st an da rd s fo r acce pt ab le lev el s o f ph os ph orus in th e su rfac e wat ers of t he Ever gl ad es . Afte r th e am en dm en t o f th e Actan d t he ad op ti on of t he ph os ph orus rul e, th e Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl or id a an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s fi le d 3co m

pl ai nt s ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s, the Uni te d S ta te s En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Age nc y , th e Adm in is tra to r of th e Age nc y , andth e Reg io na l Ad m in is tra to r of th e Age nc y . The co m

pl ai nt s al le ge d v io la ti on s o f th e Cl eanW at er Act , th e p ur po se of whi chis to “ res to re an d m ai nt ai n t he ch em ic al , ph y si cal an d b io lo gi cal in te gr it y of th e Nat io n’s wat ers .” 33 U.S.C. § 1 25 1( a). The Act re qu ire s ea ch st at e to ad op t wate r qu al it y

st an da rd s t ha t m

us t b e subm it te d t o t he Agen cy forrev ie w. Id. § 13 13 (c). Th e Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s ch al le ng edth e d et erm in at io n o f th e Age nc y

th atth e 2 00 3 am en dm en ts to th e Fl or id a Actwere n otne w or re vi se d wate r qu al it y

st an da rd s s ub

ject t o Ag en cy

rev ie w. They

als o c ha ll en ge d t he ap pr ov al of t he ph os ph orus rul e b y th e Age nc y . The di stric t co urt co ns ol id at edth e cas es in20 05 . The Flo rid a Dep art m en t of Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n i nt erv en edas apa rty defe nd an t b ecau se itis res po ns ib le foren fo rcem en t o f th e Fl or id a Act . New Hop e Su gar Co m pa ny and Oke el an taCo rp or at io n, o wne rs an d fa rm ers of abo ut19 0,0 00 acre s o f la ndinth e Eve rg la de s, al so in te rv en ed . Fed . R. Civ . P. 24 (b ). In20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t the 20 03 am en dm en ts to th e Fl or id a Actch an ge d wat er qua li ty stan dard s an d t he Agen cy ha d adu ty ei th er t o app ro ve or d is ap pr ov e th os e ch an ge s. Th e d is tri ctco urt al so rul edth at 4so m e o f th e p ro vi si on s o f th e p ho sp ho ru s ru le were i nv al id . The d is tri ctco urt

co nc lu de d t ha t the Agen cy ha d a ct edarb it rari ly andcap ric io us ly by “ al lo w[in g] ‘Flor id a to rad ic al ly m od ify its wate r qu al it y st an da rd s, s im

pl y di sa vo w th ata ch an ge ha d t ak enpl ace’ an d the n ‘rel y on Flo rid a’s di sa vo wal t o avo idit s m an da to ry

rev ie w of t he m od ifi edst an da rd s.’” As a re su lt , th e d is tri ctco urt

“ ex erci se [d ] it s equi tabl e p owe rs to av oi d e nv iro nm en ta l i nju ry to th e Eve rg la de s” an d “ en joi n[ ed ] th e [Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n] fro m is su in g p erm it s [u nd er] th os e se ct io ns of t he ph os ph orus rul e th at[were] set as id e.” On No ve m

be r 4, 2 00 9, the Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s m ov edto ha ve th e Age nc y

he ldinciv il co nt em

ptforfai li ng to is su e a n ew de te rm in at io n ab ou t wh ethe r th e 2 00 3 a m en dm en ts or p ho sp ho ru s ru le co m pl ie d wi th th e Cl ean W at er Act . On Dece m

be r 3, 2 00 9, the Agen cy

is su eda ne w det erm in at io n t ha t di sapp ro ve d s ev eral pro vi si on s o f th e 2 00 3 a m en dm en ts an d t he ph os ph orus rul e, an d t he Agen cy

res po nd edth atth e n ew de te rm in at io n re nd eredm oo t the m ot io n of th e Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s. Th e Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s re pl ie d tha t the ne w det erm in at io n fa il edto co m pl y with t he ord er o f th e d is tri ctco urt an d t he Agen cy sh ou ldbe he ldinco nt em pt . On Ap ril 14 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt o rd eredth e Age nc y to is su e an 5“ Am en de d Det erm in at io n” th at“ di rect [ed ] th e St at e o f Fl or id a to co rrec t the

de fic ie nc ie s i n t he Am en de d [F lo rid a Act ] an d t he Ph os ph orus Ru le ,” an d t he di st ric t co urt s uasp on te ord eredth e Adm in is tra to r, th e Reg io na l Ad m in is tra to r fo r Reg io n IV, an d t he ex ecu ti ve di rect orof the Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Env iro nm en ta l Pro te ct io n t o app ear a t a h eari ng on Octo be r 7, 2 01 0, ab ou t co m pl ia nc e wit h t he or de r. The d is tri ctco urt al so res erv edth e ri gh t “ to ful ly exerc is e it s co nt em pt po wer i n t he ev en t fu ll co m pl ia nc e is no t m et .” On J ul y 29 , 20 10 , th e Age nc y

m ov edto m od ify the in

jun ct io n o n t he gro un d th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adord eredth e Age nc y to actbe y on d i ts st atut ory au th or it y , Fed . R. Civ . P. 60 (b ). All th e d efen da nt s an d a ll in te rv en or s fi le d an app eal of t he or de r of Apri l 1 4. Th is Co urt s ta y edth atap pe al pe nd in g re so lu ti on of t he m ot io n to m od ify the in

jun ct io n. On Se pt em

be r 3, 2 01 0, the Agen cy

fil edit s Am en de d Det erm in at io n, an d o n Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 0, the Agen cy

m ov edforleave to subs ti tu te th e ap pe aran ce o f th e Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r fo r W at er fo r th e ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r. The Adm in is tra to r is a hi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia l. Sh e was ap po in te d b y th e Pre si de ntan d co nf irmed by the Sen at e, an d s he rep orts di rect ly to the Pres id en t. The Ass is ta nt Adm in is tra to r fo r W at er i s t he sen io r Age nc y off ic ia l re sp on si bl e fo r fu lfi ll in g t he res po ns ib il it ie s o f th e Age nc y un de r th e Cl eanW at er Act . He was re sp on si bl e fo r

6pr ep ari ng th e Am en de d Det erm in at io n andth e res po ns e o f th e Age nc y to th e o rd er of Apri l 1 4. Lik e th e Adm in is tra to r, he was a ls o app oi nt edby the Pres id en t an d co nf irmed by the Sen at e. The di stric t co urt o ral ly den ie d t he m ot io n t o s ub st itut e atth e en d o f a te le ph on e co nf

eren ce. Dur in g t ha t co nf eren ce the di st ric t co urt s ta te d, “ I th in k th atth e is su es th atI ne edto ad dr es s atth is he ari ng ha ve to be do ne by the ag en cy he adonpo li cy

m atte rs .” The d is tri ctco urt al so st at edth atitwas “ co m m it te d t o th e co ur se th at[itha d] ad op te d h ere wi th ou t d ev ia ti on .” Ina la te r writ te n o rd er, th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t “ [d ]efend an ts ’ reque stat t hi s ju nc tu re t o s ub st itut e [the Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r] . . . for the Adm in is tra to r is indi rectvi ol at io n o f th e Apr il 14 , 20 10 Orde r an d u na ccep tabl e.” The d is tri ctco urt faul te d t he de fen da nt s fo r wai ti ng un ti l o ne m on th be fo re the he ari ng an d fo un d t ha t the act io n i nv ol ve d ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces th atrequi reda pe rs on al res po ns e fro m th e Adm in is tra to r ab ou t “ whe th er the st rat eg ie s o ut li ne d i n t he Am en de d Dete rm in at io n a re a s in cere co m m it m en t o r m erel y

anem pt y sh el l.” Th e co urt al so ob se rv edth at“ th e Eve rg la de s i s o f co ns id erab le na ti on al im po rta nc e,” an d

“ [t]he Co urt m

us t b e ab le to m ak e anin te ll ig en t i nqui ry reg ard in g t he [Age nc y ’s] po si ti onan d p ol ic y

m at te rs , to be ad dr es se d b y th e [Ag en cy ] Adm in is tra to r.”

7Afte r th e d en ia l o f it s m ot io n fo r subs ti tu ti on , th e Age nc y fil eda pe ti ti on for a wri t o f m an da m

us inth is Co urt. We sta y edth atpo rti on of t he co nt em ptord er th atrequi redth e Adm in is tra to r’s pe rs on al ap pe aran ce p en di ng ou r de ci si on on th e m an da m us pe ti ti on . W e in vi te d, b utdi d n otrequi re, the di st ric t co urt t o a dd res s th e p et it io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt re sp on de d, as itha d e ve ry rig htto do , th atan y fil in g wo ul d b e dup li cat iv e o f it s o rd er o f Sep te m be r 21 , 20 10 , andrefe rredus to th atord er i n l ie u o f a res po ns e. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ Man dam us is anex tra or di na ry

rem edy , anditis ap pr op ria te on ly whe n ‘no ot he r ad equa te m ean s ar e av ai labl e to rem edy a cl ear u su rp at io n o f po wer o r ab us e of di sc ret io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt.’” Carp en te r v. M oh awkIndus ., Inc ., 54 1 F .3d 10 48 , 10 55 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng In r e Lou de rm il ch , 15 8 F .3d11 43 , 11 44 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON W e h av e ackno wled ge d t ha t the co m pe ll edap pe aran ce o f a h ig h- ran ki ng of fic er o f th e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g i m pl ic at es th e se pa rat io n of po wers , andwe ha ve all owe d a n e xe cu ti ve off ic ia l t o c ha ll en ge anord er co m pe ll in g h is ap pe aran ce b y fil in g ape ti ti on for

a writof m an da m

us witho ut ha vi ng to in cu r a co nt em ptsan ct io n. In re Un it edSta te s, 9 85 F.2d51 0, 5 12 –1 3

8(1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . In In re Un it edSta te s, d efen da nt s i nd ic te d fo r vi ol at io ns of

pr es cri pt io n d ru g l aws arg ue d t ha t the y were b ei ng pro se cu te d s el ect iv el y , and th ey subp oe na edth e d ep os it io n t es ti m on y of t he Co m

m is si on er o f th e Fo odan d Dru g Adm in is tra ti on to supp ort the ir d efen se . 98 5 F .2dat 5 11 . The d is tri ctco urt de ni eda m ot io n t o qua sh th e subp oe naan d o rd eredth e Co m m is si on er t o b e av ai labl e b y

tel ep ho ne to tes ti fy

for30 m in ut es . Id. We gran te d awritof m an da m us to qu as h t he subp oe naof t he Co m m is si on er. Id . at 5 13 . W e co nc lu de d tha t co m

pe ll in g t he tes ti m on y

of t he Co m

m is si on er o f th e Fo odan d Dru g Adm in st rat io n “ wou ldha ve ser io us rep ercu ss io ns forth e rel at io ns hi p b etweentwo co equa l b ran ch es of g ov ern m en t.” Id . W e al lo wedth e Co m m is si on er t o o bt ai n a n e xt rao rd in ary writto av oi d t ha t en cro ach m en t o f th e se pa rat io n o f po wers : “ Requi rin g t he . . . Co m m is si on er t o fi gh t the subp oe naby pl aci ng hi m se lf i n c on te m ptim pl ic at es sep arat io n o f po wers co nc ern s an d wo ul d ha rm th e p ub li c p erce pt io n o f th e [Adm in is tra ti on ]. ” Id . at 5 12 . W e ex pl ai ne d th at“ [t]he Co m

m is si on er wo ul d h av e to tak e v al uabl e ti m e away from ot he r ta sk s in de ci di ng whet he r to in cu r th e sa nc ti on of t he co urt.” Id . at 5 12 . W e al so co ns id eredth e o bv io us pra ct ic al im pl ic at io ns of r equi rin g h ig h g ov ern m en t of fic ia ls to ap pe ar i n ju di ci al pro ceed in gs : “ If the Co m m is si on er was ask edto te st ify in e ve ry

cas e whi ch th e [Adm in is tra ti on ] pr os ecu te d, h is ti m e wou ldbe 9m on op ol iz edby prep ari ng an d t es ti fy in g i n s uc h c as es .” Id .

W e m us t re vi ew th e rec or d t o d et erm in e whe th er i t s up po rts a fi nd in g o f ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces or a“ sp eci al ne ed ” fo r co m pe ll in g t he ap pe aran ce o f a h ig h- ran ki ng off

ic er i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g. Id . In In re Un it edSta te s, we co nc lu de d t ha t the reco rdfai le d t o s up po rt afin di ng of s pe ci al ne edfor co m pe ll in g t he Co m

m is si on er t o t es ti fy

be cau se th e “ reco rddi sc lo se [d ] th at te st im on y was a va il ab le fro m

alt ern at e wit ne ss es .” Id . “ W e are , of c ou rs e, bo un d to fol lo w pri orpa ne l p rece de ntth atis on po in t.” Ng uyen v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 56 F.3 d 1 24 4, 1 25 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Mo reo ve r, th e d eci si on s o f se ve ral of o ursi st er ci rcu it s fo ll ow o urap pr oa ch . Oursi st er ci rcu it s h av e al lo wedhi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia ls to pe ti ti on fora writof m an da m us insi m il ar ci rcu m st an ces . See Inre Ch en ey , 54 4 F .3d31 1, 3 14 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ [M]an da m

us m ay be warran te d [t o p rev en t] in tru si ve di sc ov ery ag ai ns t the Vice Pres id en t.”) ; Inre SEC, 3 74 F.3d18 4, 1 88 (2dCir . 20 04 ) (“ [T]here i s a m ark eddi ffer en ce b etweenrequi rin g apri va te li ti ga ntto subm itto a co nt em ptord er b efo re s eek in g app el la te rel ie f an d re qu iri ng ex ecu ti ve ag en cy of fic ia ls to do so . . . .”); In r e Uni te d S ta te s, 1 97 F.3d31 0, 3 14 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9) (“ [T]he wri t i s t he ap pr op ria te rem edy when th ere a re s eri ou s p ol ic y co ns id erat io ns . . . .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; In re FDIC , 58 F.3d 1010 55 , 10 60 (5t h C ir. 1 99 5) (“ [W] e g ran t the pe ti ti on an d o rd er the m ag is tra te

jud ge to . . . gr an t the FDIC’s m ot io n t o qua sh de po si ti on s.”) . Andou r si st er ci rcu it s h av e requi reda sh owi ng of s pe ci al ne edbe fo re co m pe ll in g t he ap pe aran ce of a hi gh -ran ki ng off

ic er. See In r e Ch en ey , 54 4 F .3dat 3 14 (“ The du ti es of h ig hran ki ng ex ecu ti ve off

ic ers sh ou ldno t b e in te rrupt edby j ud ic ia l d em an ds for in fo rm at io n t ha t co ul d b e o bt ai ne d e ls ewh ere.” ); I n re Uni te d S ta te s, 1 97 F.3dat 31 4 (“ If o th er p ers on s ca n p ro vi de th e in fo rm at io n s ou gh t, d is co ve ry wil l n otbe pe rm it te d a ga in st[a h ig h- ran ki ng go ve rn m en t] off ic ia l.”) ; In re FDIC , 58 F.3dat 10 60 (“ W e th in k i t wi ll be th e rar es t o f cas es . . . in whi ch ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces canbe sh own wher e th e te st im on y is av ai labl e fro m

analt ern at e witne ss .”) The reco rdest ab li sh es th atth e Age nc y reas on ab ly offer edth e ap pe aran ce o f a h ig h- ran ki ng an d kno wled ge ab le off ic ia l as a subs ti tu te forth e Adm in is tra to r’s ap pe aran ce. Lik e th e Adm in is tra to r, th e Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r fo r W at er i s ap po in te d b y

th e Pre si de ntan d c on firm edby the Sen at e. The As si st an t Adm in is tra to r fo r W at er i s t he pri m ary of fic ia l re sp on si bl e fo r fu lfi ll in g t he na ti on al res po ns ib il it ie s o f th e Age nc y un de r th e Cl ean W at er Act , in cl ud in g t he res po ns e o f th e Age nc y

to th e o rd er o f Apr il 14 an d t he pre parat io n o f th e Am en de d Det erm in at io n. Th e Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r fo r W at er i s n oton ly a 11hi gh er-r an ki ng off ic ia l tha n t he off

ic ia ls who se tes ti m on y

was o ffer edinIn r e Uni te d S ta te s, b uthe is th e m os t kno wled ge ab le off ic ia l ab ou t the Am en de d Dete rm in at io n b ecau se he was re sp on si bl e fo r it s p rep arat io n. The di stric t co urt fa il edto ex pl ai n wh atin fo rm at io n t he Adm in is tra to r can pr ov id e o r wha t s pe ci al ne edsh e can sat is fy by her ap pe aran ce tha t the Ass is ta nt Adm in is tra to r fo r W at er ca nn ot . The d is tri ctco urt i ns te adrefe rred , inco nc lu so ry te rm s, t o i ts au th or it y

to “po se di rectqu es ti on s t o Def en dant s re ga rd in g wh ethe r th e st rat eg ie s o ut li ne d i n t he Am en de d Det erm in at io n a re a s in cere co m m it m en t o r m erel y anem pt y sh el l” an d t he ne ed“ to m ak e anin te ll ig en t i nqui ry reg ard in g t he . . . po si ti on[of

th e Age nc y ] an d p ol ic y

m atte rs , to be ad dr es se d b y th e [Ag en cy ] Adm in is tra to r.” The di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t the Adm in is tra to r ha d a de qu at e ti m e to pre pa re fo r th e h eari ng , th e p ro te ct io n o f th e Eve rg la de s i s an is su e o f na ti on al im po rta nc e, an d t he Agen cy ha s n otco m

pl ie d wi th th e ear li er o rd ers of t he co urt, bu t n on e o f th os e as se rti on s ex pl ai ns why th e Ass is tantAdm in is tra to r is an in ad equa te subs ti tu te . The As si st an t Ad m in is tra to r is ch arg edwith e ns ur in g co m pl ianc e wit h t he ord er o f Apr il 14 , has na ti on al res po ns ib il it y foren fo rcem en t of th e Cl ean W at er Act , andis th e o ffi ci al pri m ari ly resp on si bl e fo r th e Am en de d Dete rm in at io n. The th reatto th e se pa rat io n o f po wers is m or e subs ta nt ia l h ere t ha n i n In re 12Uni te d S ta te s. Th e Adm in is tra to r is a hi gh er-r an ki ng off ic ia l tha n t he Co m m is si on er o f th e Fo odan d Dru g Ad m in is tra ti on , andwe ru le d tha t, ab se nt ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , com pe ll in g t he Co m

m is si on er’s t es ti m on y

by tele ph on e fo r 30 m in ut es di sr es pe ct edth e se pa rat io n o f po wers . In re Uni te d S ta te s, 9 85 F.2dat 51 2. By con tra st , com

pe ll in g t he pe rs on al ap pe aran ce o f th e h ig he r-ra nk in g Adm in is tra to r in a di st an t ju di ci al di st ric t fo r in te rro ga ti on by the co urt fo r an in de fin it e p eri odis a far m or e se rio us en cro ach m en t o n t he sep arat io n o f po wers . The Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s ar gu e th atIn r e Uni te d S ta te s i s di st in gu is habl e b ecau se a pa rty, notth e co urt, i n t ha t ca se , in it ia ll y co m pe ll edby subp oe nath e ap pe aran ce o f th e ex ecu ti ve off ic ia l, b utth atdi st in ct io n i s imm at eri al . Com

pe ll in g h ig h e xe cu ti ve off ic ia ls to ap pe ar i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g im pl ic at es th e se pa rat io n o f po wers reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e ap pe aran ce i s co m pe ll edin it ia ll y

by a part y

or s uasp on te by the co urt. Ineit he r ev en t, the ap pe aran ce o f th e ex ecu ti ve off ic ia l m us t b e, in th e en d, co m

pe ll edby an o rd er o f th e jud ic ia ry , whi ch im

pl ic at es th e se pa rat io n o f po wers . For t ha t re as on , inbo th ci rcu m st an ces , th ere m

us t b e a s ho win g o f sp eci al ne edbe fo re a h ig h- ran ki ng ex ecu ti ve off

ic ia l ca n b e co m

pe ll edby the jud ic ia ry

to ap pe ar. The Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s al so arg ue th atIn r e Uni te d S ta te s is di st in gu is habl e b ecau se th e Adm in is tra to r is a na m edparty, butwe di sa gr ee. 13The de ci si on s we re li edup oninIn r e Uni te d S ta te s al l i nv ol ve d c om pe ll in g t he te st im on y of ahi gh -ran ki ng off

ic ia l wh ere e it he r th e o ffi ci al or h is ag en cy was a pa rty to t he li ti ga ti on . Id. at51 2 (c it in g S im pl ex Tim e Rec or de r Co . v. Sec ’y of Lab or , 76 6 F .2d57 5 (D.C . Cir . 19 85 ); I n re Offic e o f In sp ect or Gen., 9 33 F.2d27 6 (5 th Cir . 19 91 ); S ween ey v. Bo nd , 66 9 F .2d54 2 (8 th Cir . 19 82 ); Un it edSta te s v . Merhi ge , 48 7 F .2d25 (4t h C ir. 1 97 4) ; Pe op le s v . Uni te d S ta te s Dep ’t of Ag ric ., 42 7 F .2d56 1 (D.C . Cir . 19 70 )). We als o e xp la in edth atitwou ldbe im po ss ib le for hi gh -ran ki ng ex ecu ti ve off ic ia ls to att en d p ro ceed in gs inev ery jud ic ia l d is tri ctin whi chth ey

are n am edas p art ie s: “ Inord er t o p ro te ctoff ic ia ls fro m

th e co ns ta nt di st ract io n o f te st ifyin g i n l aws ui ts , cou rts have requi red[a s ho win g o f] a sp eci al ne edor s itua ti on co m

pe ll in g s uc h t es ti m on y .” Id . The Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s ar gu e th atwe sh ou ldfol lo w th e de ci si on inIn r e Kes sl er, 1 00 F.3d10 15 (D.C. Cir . 19 97 ), an d n otis su e th e wri t, bu t o urpre ced en t i n In re Un it edSta te s s qu arel y for ecl os es th atarg um en t. InIn r e Kes sl er, the Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a Ci rcu itde ni eda pe ti ti on forwritof m an da m us aft er the Co m

m is si on er o f th e Fo odan d Dru g Ad m in is tra ti on ha d b eenco m pe ll ed to subm itto a de po si ti on . Id. at10 18 . The Kes sl er co urt d ecl in edto fol lo w ou r pr eced en t i n In re Un it edSta te s o n t he gro un d t ha t o urde ci si on “ di d n ottak e in to acco un t s uf

fic ie nt ly the co ns ti tu ti on al di st in ct io n b etweenth e Pre si de nthi m se lf 14an d s ub or di na te off ic ers inth e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h.” Id. at10 17 . “ The factth at ot he r ci rcu it s d is ag ree wi th [ou r] anal y si s i s i rrel ev an t.” EEOC v . W & O, Inc ., 21 3 F .3d60 0, 6 23 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . W e are bo un d b y a pr io r pa ne l d eci si on of th is Co urt u nl es s an d u nt il th atpa ne l d eci si on is ov erturne d b y th is Co urt en ba nc or b y

th e Supr em e Co urt. Id . Mo reo ve r, itis un cl ear t ha t the Kess le r co urt wo ul d h av e d en ie d awritin th is cir cu m st an ce. The Kess le r co urt m ad e m uc h o f th e rel at iv el y

lo w po si ti on th atth e Co m

m is si on er h ol ds inth e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h: “ Exe cu ti ve Leve l IV i s t he jou rn eym anlev el of t ho se ap po in te d b y th e Pre si de ntan d c on firm edby the Sen at e.” Inre Kes sl er, 1 00 F.3dat 1 01 7. Th e Kes sl er co urt was co nc ern edth at th ere was no m ean in gf

ul way to di st in gu is h t he Co m

m is si on er o f th e Fo odan d Dru g Adm in is tra ti on fro m th e o ve r 35 0 o th er Lev el IV ap po in te es . Id. at10 18 . By co nt ras t, the Adm in is tra to r is on e o f th e h ig he stoff ic ia ls of the ex ecu ti ve br an ch . See 5 U.S.C. § 5 31 3. Th e co nc ern s tha t m ot iv at edth e d eci si on inKess le r are n otpre se nthe re. The Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s fi na ll y arg ue th atth e Age nc y wait edto o l at e to m ov e fo r subs ti tu ti on , bu t the Agen cy fil edit s m ot io n wi th in on e weekaft er i t h adfil edit s Am en de d Det erm in at io n a nda fu ll m on th be fo re the he ari ng wher e th e Adm in is tra to r was to ap pe ar. W e can no t s ay th atth is de la y

was 15un reas on ab le , andth e Trib e an d F rie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s h av e n otcit edan y

au th or it y forth e p ro po si ti on th ata di st ric t co urt s ho ul d d en y a m ot io n fo r subs ti tu ti on if i t i s n otbro ug htat t he earl ie stpo ss ib le ti m e. The d is tri ctco urt al so fai le d t o i de nt ify any pr ejud ic e to it s p ro ceed in g c au se d b y th e d el ay by the Age nc y . On t he reco rdbe fo re u s, we ca nn otco nc lu de th atth ere i s a s pe ci al ne edfor th e Adm in is tra to r’s ap pe aran ce. The di st ric t co urt, wi th ou t s uf fic ie ntreas on , so ug htto de te rm in e th e p rio rit ie s fo r a h ig h- le ve l ex ecu ti ve off ic ia l an d c le arl y en cro ach edon th e d is cret io n v es te d i n t he ex ecu ti ve branc h. We are m in df ul th at th e eco lo gy of th e Eve rg la de s i s a n at io na l p rio rit y , bu t i t ca nn otbe sai d t ha t the Eve rg la de s i s the on ly m at te r of na ti on al im

po rta nc e d em an di ng th e Adm in is tra to r’s at te nt io n. The di ss en t ex pr es se s d is ag reem en t wi th ou r de ci si on no t b y ad dr es si ng ou r reas on in g, b utby chan gi ng th e subjec t. The di ss en t ar gu es th atth e “bl at an t un wil li ng ne ss [of

th e Age nc y ] to ab id e b y

th e co urt’s co m

m an ds ” is su ffi ci en t t o co ns ti tu te ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces , bu t wh ethe r th e Age nc y ha s co m pl ie d wi th earl ie r or de rs is no t an is su e b efo re u s. As we ex pl ai ne d, the Agen cy ha s ap pe al ed th e o rd er o f Apr il 14 to th is Co urt, an d t hi s p an el do es no t h av e th e juri sd ic ti on to de ci de th atap pe al . W e can no t p reju dg e whe th er the Agen cy is inco m pl ia nc e wit h 16th e su m

m ary jud gm en t, an d t he who le po in t o f th e h eari ng wher e th e Adm in is tra to r was be in g c om pe ll edto ap pe ar was to de te rm in e whe th er the Am en de d Det erm in at io n wo ul d b rin g t he Agen cy in to co m pl ia nc e wit h t he ord er of Apri l 1 4. Th e d is se ntst at es th at“ we m us t t ak e th e fi nd in gs of the di st ric t co urt as we rece iv e th em ,” bu t the ord er o f Apr il 14 , whi ch ag ai n i s o n app eal , is no t a fin al jud gm en t wi thres jud ic at a eff ect , as t he di ss en t erro ne ou sl y su gg es ts . The th reatto th e se pa rat io n o f po wers pre se nt edby thi s p et it io n i s n otab ou t whe th er the Agen cy

is inco m pl ia nc e wit h e it he r th e su m m ary jud gm en t o r th e or de r of Apri l 1 4, b utis in st eadab ou t wh ethe r th e jud ic ia l b ran ch ha s t he au th or it y to de te rm in e fo r th e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h wh ic h h ig h- ran ki ng off ic ia l s ho ul d app ear a t a h eari ng to rep res en t the Agen cy . The Ag en cy di d n otth reat enth e jud ic ia l br an ch by des ig na ti ng th e Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r to ap pe ar b efo re the di st ric t co urt. The reco rdest ab li sh es th atth e Age nc y res pe ct fu ll y

off ereda pr es id en ti al ap po in te e, who is kn owl ed ge ab le ab ou t the Am en de d Det erm in at io n a ndis ful ly cap ab le of a dd res si ng th e n eed s o f th e d is tri ctco urt, t o s erv e as anad equa te subs ti tu te forth e Adm in is tra to r. Nor d idth e Age nc y un de rm in e th e au th or it y

of th e d is tri ctco urt t o d et erm in e whe th er the Agen cy ha s co m pl ie d wi th th e o rd er o f Apr il 14 . At th e en d o f th e h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt wi ll st il l h av e th e au th or it y to de ci de th atqu es ti on . The Ag en cy in st eadex erci se d i ts pre ro ga ti ve , as a n 17in de pe nd en t b ran ch , to de si gn at e whi chof i ts hi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia ls sh ou ldap pe ar as it s re pr es en ta ti ve ina pr oc eed in g o f th e jud ic ia l b ran ch . Thatde ci si on lea ve s in ta ctth e au th or ity

of t he jud ic ia l b ran ch to de ci de th e “ cas e” o r “ co nt ro ve rs y ” be fo re i t, wh ic h i s al l the au th or it y th atArti cl e III o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on grant s t he

“ le as t d an ge ro us ” b ran ch . See Th e Fed eral is t No . 78 , at 4 65 (Ale xa nd er Ham il to n) (Cl in to n R os si te r ed ., 19 61 ). The di ss en t co nf

us es th e is su e whe n i t s ug ge st s t ha t the Agen cy “ co m es be fo re thi s C ou rt r eque st in g t he ex tra or di na ry rem edy of m an da m

us to sav e th em fro m th e co ns eque nc es of t he ir o wn ex tra or di na ry no nc om pl ia nc e.” All th e Age nc y ha s d on e is reque stres pe ctforit s d eci si on to all ow a kno wled ge ab le pr es id en ti al ap po in te e, in st eadof t he Adm in is tra to r, to ap pe ar o n i ts be ha lf i n t he di st ric t co urt. Tha t s ub st itut io n d oe s n otinan y way “ sa ve ” th e Age nc y

fro m an y co ns eque nc es . The Ag en cy wil l s ti ll ha ve to an swe r fo r it s al le ge d no nc om pl ia nc e, whi ch is why th e d is se ntis wron g t o s ug ge stth atou r de ci si on

“ m ean s we a re p owe rle ss to en fo rce o urjud gm en ts .” Our d eci si on is no t ab ou t th atis su e. The di ss en t faul ts us for

“ co nf in [in g] ou r rev ie w of t he reco rdto th e fo ur co rn ers ” o f th e o rd er tha t d en ie d t he m ot io n t o s ub st itut e, bu t tha t cr it ic is m is witho utm eri t. We inv it edth e d is tri ctco urt t o fi le a res po ns e to th e p et it io n fo r a 18writof m an da m us fil edby the Agen cy

an d t he Adm in is tra to r, bu t the di stric t co urt de cl in edto do so an d i ns te adrefe rredus to th e v ery or de r th atth e d is se ntfau lt s u s fo r rel y in g upo n t oo he av il y . W e rev ie wedbo th th atord er an d t he trans cri ptof t he co nf eren ce tha t the di stric t co urt h el d o n t he m ot io n t o s ub st itut e atwhi ch th e di st ric t co urt al so off

eredanex pl an at io n o f it s d eci si on . W e rev ie wedth os e po rti on s o f th e rec or d b ecau se th ey are the on ly pla ces wher e th e d is tri ctco urt of fere d a ny exp la na ti on forit s d eci si on . W e al so rev ie wedev erythi ng th atth e pa rti es cit edag ai ns t an d i n s up po rt o f th e d eci si onof t he di stric t co urt. Whatwe ha ve no t d on e is us e a l en gthy reco rdas a n e xc us e fo r no t s up pl y in g arat io na le th atcaninany

way supp ort the de ci si on of t he di st ric t co urt. The di ss en t ci te s Un it edSta te s v . Mo rg an , 31 3 U.S. 4 09 , 61 S. Ct. 9 99 (1 94 1) , as “ bi nd in g aut ho rity ,” bu t M or ga n s up po rts ou r de ci si on to gra nta writof m an da m us . In tha t ca se , th e Sec ret ary of Agri cu ltur e’s ap pe aran ce was co m pe ll ed ov er the ob

jecti on of t he go ve rn m en t. Id . at 4 21 –2 2, 6 1 S . Ct. at10 04 –0 5. Th e Supr em e Co urt, af

te r de ci di ng th e m eri ts of the li ti ga ti onab ou t an ord er b y th e Secr et ary, su a sp on te tu rn edit s at te nt io n t o “ a m at te r no t t ou ch in g t he va li di ty of th e o rd er [b utno ne th el es s] requi r[i ng ] co ns id erat io n.” Id. at42 1, 6 1 S . Ct. at 10 04 . The Co urt the n c on de m ne d, i n t he fol lo win g s tro ng term s, the de ci si on to co m pe l the Secr et ary to ap pe ar an d t es ti fy inth e d is tri ctco urt: “ th e sh ort o f th e 19bu si ne ss is th atth e Sec ret ary sh ou ldne ve r ha ve be ensubjec te d t o t hi s

ex am in at io n,” be cau se “ itwas n otth e fu nc ti on of t he co urt t o p ro be th e m en ta l pr oc es se s o f th e Sec ret ary. ” Id . at 4 22 , 61 S. Ct. at10 04 (qu ot in g M or ga n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 98 U.S. 46 8, 4 80 , 56 S. Ct. 9 06 , 91 1 (1 93 6) ). Mo rg ansu gg es ts th ata di stric t co urt s ho ul d ra rel y , if ev er, co m pe l the att en da nc e o f a h ig h- ran ki ng of fic ia l i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g, wh ic h i s wh y we rel ie d upo n i t i n In re Un it ed St at es . Mor ga n d oe s n otsu gg es t o r ev enhi ntth ata fed eral di st ric t co urt s ho ul d ev er co m pe l a m em

be r of th e Pre si de nt ’s cab in etor a no th er h ig h- ran ki ng off ic ia l to ap pe ar i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g t o t es ti fy ab ou t the off

ic ia l’s dut ie s o r de ci si on s. The di ss en t al so cit es Cli nt onv. J on es , 52 0 U.S. 6 80 , 11 7 S . Ct. 1 63 6 (1 99 7) , bu t tha t d eci si on do es no t s up po rt t he po si ti on of the di ss en t. Cl in to n in vo lv edth e ex te ntof o ffi ci al imm un it y grant edto th e Pre si de ntwhen su edinhi s in di vi du al cap aci ty, whi le inoff ic e, fo r co nduc t tha t o ccu rredbe fo re h e to ok of fic e. Altho ug h t he Co urt h el d t ha t the Pres id en t was no t en ti tl edto off ic ia l imm un it y inth atcir cu m st an ce, the Co urt s ta te d t ha t i t was no t “ co nf ro nt [in g] th e qu es ti on whet he r a co urt m ay co m pe l the att en da nc e o f th e Pre si de ntat any sp eci fic ti m e o r pl ace.” The o ne th in g t ha t the Co urt ex pl ai ne d i n C li nt on th atis rel ev an t t o t hi s ca se is th at , “ if atri al is he ld , th ere wo ul d b e n o n eces si ty for the Pres id en t t o a tt en d i n p ers on , th ou gh he co ul d e le ctto do so .” Id . at 6 91 –9 2, 1 17 20S. Ct . at 1 64 3. In co nt ras t wi th Cli nt on , th e Adm in is tra to r is no t b ei ng su edin he r

in di vi du al cap aci ty abo utco nduc t tha t o ccu rredbe fo re s he to okoff ic e n orare pr in ci pl es of qua li fie d i m m un it y rai se d b y th is pe ti ti on . The Adm in is tra to r was in st eadco m

pe ll edby the di stric t co urt t o app ear i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g abo uthe r publ ic du ti es ev enth ou gh th e rec or d d is cl os es th atan ot he r hi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia l i s av ai labl e to serve as a n a de qu at e subs ti tu te . The di ss en t al so gl os se s o ve r ou r pr eced en t i n In re Un it edSta te s wh ere we de ci de d t wo s ep arat e is su es : (1 ) th atm an da m us is av ai labl e to rev ie w an o rd er co m pe ll in g t he ap pe aran ce o f th e Co m m is si on er i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g; an d (2 ) th atth ere i s n o s pe ci al ne edforth e Co m m is si on er’s ap pe aran ce an d t he writ sh ou ldbe gra nt edwhen “ [t]he reco rddi sc lo se s t ha t t es ti m on y [is ] av ai labl e fro m al te rn at e wit ne ss es .” 98 5 F .2dat 5 12 . The d is se ntfai ls to ackno wled ge th e b as is fo r ou r res ol ut io n o f th e se co ndis su e. The d is se ntin st eadob li qu el y st at es th at

“ th e fac ts of t ha t p art ic ul ar ca se ” d idno t es tabl is h asp eci al ne edforth e Co m m is si on er’s t es ti m on y

witho utackno wled gi ng th atth e b as is forth atrul in g was th atth e reque st edtes ti m on y was a va il ab le fro m

ot he r wit ne ss es . The di ss en t fa il s t o a dd res s t he on ly iss ue be fo re u s: whet he r th e d is tri ct co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de te rm in in g t ha t the Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r fo r W at er i s an in ad equa te subs ti tu te forth e Adm in is tra to r. The d is se ntfai ls to 21ex pl ai n h ow co m pe ll in g t he Adm in is tra to r to ap pe ar s at is fie s a s pe ci al ne edforth e he ari ng to be he ldinth e d is tri ctco urt. The di ss en t fa il s t o e xp la in what in fo rm at io n t he Adm in is tra to r can pro vi de th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the Ass is ta nt Adm in is tra to r can no t. The di ss en t fa il s t o c it e ev ena si ng le de ci si on of acir cu it co urt tha t h as up he ldanord er co m pe ll in g ahi gh -ran ki ng off ic ia l o f th e ex ecu ti ve br an ch to ap pe ar i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g. The d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edth e m ot io n t o subs ti tu te . The Ag en cy

reas on ab ly des ig na te d t he Ass is tantAdm in is tra to r, who is pr im ari ly resp on si bl e fo r en fo rcem en t o f th e Cl ean W at er Actan d c om pl ia nc e with t he ord ers of t he di stric t co urt, t o app ear o n i ts be ha lf i n t he di st ric t co urt. Abs en t ev id en ce tha t the Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r’s ap pe aran ce wi ll fai l t o s at is fy an y sp eci al ne edof t he di stric t co urt, we ca nn otco nc lu de th atth e ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r is ne ces sa ry . IV. CONCLUSI ON Bec au se th ere i s n o o th er ad equa te rem edy av ai labl e to rem edy

th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt, the pe ti ti on for a writof m an da m

us is GRANTED , an d t he di st ric t co urt i s d ire ct edto all ow t he subs ti tu ti on of t he ap pe aran ce o f th e Ass is ta ntAdm in is tra to r fo r W at er o f th e Age nc y forth e ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r of

th e Age nc y . 22MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, di ss en ti ng :

I can no t ag ree t ha t the cir cu m st an ces of t hi s ca se jus ti fy th e m ajor it y ’s is su an ce o f a wri t o f m an da m us , whi ch ha s t he ex tra or di na ry effe ctof c om

pe ll in g a Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t J ud ge to rece iv e a wit ne ss ot he r th anth e o ne he be li ev ed ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s co m

pl ia nc e wit h Ord ers he is su edinth is pro lo ng edli ti ga ti on . To b e su re, I ag ree wi th th e m ajor it y th at“ th e co m

pe ll edap pe aran ce o f a h ig hran ki ng off

ic er o f th e ex ecu ti ve bra nc h i n ajud ic ia l p ro ceed in g i m pl ic at es th e se pa rat io n o f po wers ,” an d I t hu s ag ree tha t s uc h an o rd er i s ap pr op ria te inve ry li m it edcir cu m st an ces . Howev er, g iv enth e EPA’s co nt in ue d fa il ur e to co m pl y with t he di stric t co urt’s m an da te s, s uc h c irc um st an ces are p res en t i n t hi s ca se . As a res ul t, I fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n b y th e d is tri ctco urt, an d wo ul d d en y m an da m us rel ie f. Inde ci di ng th e im

po rta ntqu es ti onbe fo re u s, the m ajor it y wou ldco nf

in e o ur rev ie w of t he reco rdto th e fo urco rn ers of J ud ge Gol d’s Ord er o f Sep te m be r 21 , 20 10 , inwhi ch he de ni edth e EPA’s reque stto subs ti tu te anAss is ta nt Adm in is tra to r as a wit ne ss , when he ha d o rd eredth e ap pe aran ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r. Thi s Ord er, s ay s t he m ajor it y , do es no t co nt ai n asu ffi ci en t ex pl an at io n fo r why the Ass is tantAdm in is tra to r won ’t do . To arri ve at t hi s co nc lu si on , ho wev er, requi res tu rn in g abl in d e y e to at l eas t two re al it ie s. Fi rs t, 23Ju dg e Gol d h as pre si de d o ve r th is cas e si nc e itwas fi le d o n J un e 1 7, 2 00 4, an d h as

writ te n e xt en si ve ly abo utth e EPA’s fai lu re t o h eedhi s o rd ers . Seco nd , inhi s Sep te m be r 21 Orde r, Ju dg e Gol d m ak es rep eat edrefe ren ce t o t he hi st ory of thi s cas e, pr ev io us ord ers of t he co urt, co nv ers at io ns ha d wi th co un se l, an d g en eral ly, th e b ack gr ou ndwhi ch ledhi m to requi re the pre se nc e o f th e EPA Adm in is tra to r in th e fi rs t p la ce. Thu s h is lo okba ckov er the hi st ory of t hi s ca se is ve ry

m uc h apa rt of hi s ex pl an at io n fo r requi rin g t he pre se nc e o f th e Adm in is tra to r. Init s Ord er o f Apr il 14 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt s etou t i n e xt en si ve de ta il th atth e EPA ha s une qu iv oc al ly andrep eat ed ly flou te d a ndot he rwis e ref us edto co m pl y with t he co urt’s p rev io us ly ent eredSu m m ary Ju dg m en t o rd er. As the Apr il Orde r ex pl ai ne d, o n J ul y 29 , 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d a10 1- pa ge Orde r ho ld in g t he EPA invi ol at io n o f th e Cl eanW at er Actan d p res cri bi ng di rect iv es to rem edy th os e v io la ti on s. Yetex tra or di na ril y , ov er o ne y ear l at er the EPA hadst il l no t ac te d, an d u lt im at el y

di d n otactun ti l No ve m

be r 4, 2 00 9, af

te r th e p la in ti ffs fil eda m ot io n fo r co nt em pt . Furt he rm or e, as th e d is tri ctco urt t oo k g reatpa in s t o ex pl ai n, the subs ta nc e o f th e EPA’s 20 09 Dete rm in at io n fl at ly con tra ve ne d t he 20 08 Su m

m ary Ju dg m en t Ord er. Inth e fac e o f th is in act io n, the co urt warne d t ha t no th in g s ho rt o f th e “ effe ct iv e[] repe al of [ a] clear ly exp res se d C on gr es si on al m an da te ” was at s ta ke . 24Dete rm in edto en fo rce i ts m an da te bu t co nf ro nt edby wha t i t v ie wedas rem ark ab le di so be di en ce, the di st ric t co urt thu s “ face [d ] th e d iff ic ul t t as k o f av oi di ng bo th rem ed ie s t ha t m ay be to o i ntru si ve . . . an d t ho se th atm ay pro ve to be in effe ct iv e.” NAACP v . Sec’y Hou s. & Urb anDev., 8 17 F.2d14 9, 1 59 (1s t Ci r. 19 87 ). Aftercare fu l d el ib erat io n, the co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t o re m edy th e EPA’ s d is reg ardof t he Su m m ary Ju dg m en t o rd er, i t was ne ces sa ry forth e Adm in is tra to r of

th e EPA to ap pe ar an d upd at e th e co urt o n t he Agen cy ’s pro gr es s to ward s co m

pl ia nc e. The c ou rt the n s etth e d at e o f th is ap pe aran ce t o b e si x m on th s af te r th e o rd er i ss ue d. InSep te m

be r, fiv e m on th s af

te r is su an ce o f th e Apr il 14 Orde r, an d o nl y on e m on th be fo re the Adm in is tra to r was to ap pe ar, the EPA m ov edto subs ti tu te analt ern at iv e rep res en ta ti ve inth e p la ce o f th e Adm in is tra to r. The d is tri ctco urt de ni edth is m ot io n, ex pl ai ni ng : [T]his cas e . . . p r e s en ts ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces an d a sp eci al requi rem en t fo r th e Adm in is tra to r’s at te nd an ce. A rev ie w of th e le ng th y reco rd in th is cas e rev eal s th e si gn ifi can t ne ed fo r Defen da nt s to pr es en t th e Adm in is tra to r, Reg io na l Adm in is tra to r, an d FDEP Secr e t a ry at a h e a rin g to en su re th e Defen da nt s are co m pl y in g with th e pr ev i o u s l y i s su ed or de rs . As de m on st rat ed by th e reco rd , Defen dant s ha ve no t c om pl ie d with th e or de rs , an d th eref or e, it is ne ces sa ry fo r t h e Adm in is tra to r, Reg io na l Adm in is tra t o r, an d FDEP Secr et ary to pe rs on al ly ap pe ar an d rep ort to th e Co urt on th ei r co m pl ia nc e effo rts , as ou tl in edby the Apri l 1 4, 2 01 0 Ord er. 25The co urt fu rth er ex pl ai ne d, “ [a]s o ut li ne d b y len gt hy op in io ns inth e rec or d, thi s cas e h as a lo ng hi st ory

of e xtrao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces de m on st rat in g ave ry sp eci al ne edfor

co m pl ianc e wit h t hi s C ou rt’s o rd ers .” The EPA no w com es be fo re thi s C ou rt r eque st in g t he ex tra or di na ry rem edy of m an da m us to sav e th em

fro m th e co ns eque nc es of t he ir o wn ex tra or di nary no nc om pl ia nc e. I wou ldde ny tha t re qu es t. Ma nd am us is “ ap pr op ria te on ly whe n no ot he r ad equa te m ean s ar e av ai labl e to rem edy a cl ear u su rp at io n o f po wer o r ab us e o f di sc ret io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt.” Carp en te r v. M oh awk Indus ., Inc ., 54 1 F.3 d 1 04 8, 1 05 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Ind eed , m an da m us “ is in te nd edto pro vi de a rem edy fora pl ai nt iff

on ly if he ha s ex haus te d a ll ot he r av enue s o f rel ie f an d o nl y if t he de fen da ntowes hi m a cl ear n on di sc ret io na ry

du ty.” Cash v. Ba rn ha rt, 3 27 F.3 d 1 25 2, 1 25 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . As a res ul t, “ [t]he pe ti ti on er s eek in g t he writ carr ie s t he bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t i ts ‘ rig htto th e is su an ce o f th e wri t i s cl ear a nd in di sp ut ab le .’ ” Car

pe nt er, 5 41 F.3dat 1 05 5 (quo ti ng In r e Lop ez-Lu ki s, 1 13 F.3d 11 87 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). Ourpre ced en t d oe s n otpe rm itm e to co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e h as fai le d t o p erfo rm a no nd is cret io na ry

fun ct io n i m

po se d up on hi m by law, su chth atth e is su an ce o f a wri t o f m an da m us is jus ti fie d. No r do I be li ev e th atth e Adm in is tra to r ha s ca rri edth e h eav y bu rd enrequi redto jus ti fy 26ou r m an da ti ng ho w a Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t J ud ge m an ag es th e p art ie s t o l it ig at io n

be fo re h im . Bo th pre ced en t an d p ru de nc e supp ort the di st ric t co urt’s ac ti on s. Th e reco rdbe lo w is rep le te with e xa m pl es of t he EPA’ s fa il ur e to co m pl y with t he co urt’s o rd ers . Facedwith s uc h re cal ci tra nc e, th e co urt p ro pe rly reli edup on th e lo ng reco gn iz edin he ren t au th or it y of d is tri ctco urts to en fo rce t he ir m an da te s. See, e.g ., Cham

be rs v. Nas co , Inc ., 50 1 U.S. 3 2, 4 3, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 12 3, 2 13 2 (1 99 1) (“ Co urts of ju st ic e are un iv ers al ly ackn owl ed ge d t o b e v es te d, b y th ei r ve ry crea ti on , with p owe r to im po se si le nc e, res pe ct , andde co ru m , inth ei r pr es en ce, an d s ub m is si on to th ei r la wfu l m an da te s.”) (qu ot in g An de rs on v. Du nn , 19 U.S. (6 Whe at .) 20 4, 2 27 (18 21 )). In de ed , m or e th anpe rm is si bl e, th e d is tri ctco urt’s act io ns were co ns is te ntwith o urpri orin st ru ct io ns reg ard in g t he du ti es of t he Ju di ci ary. As we h av e ex pl ai ne d, “ [f]ede ral co urts have bo th th e in he ren t p owe r an d t he co ns ti tu ti on al ob li ga ti on to pro te ctth ei r juri sd ic ti on fro m co nduc t wh ic h im pa irs th ei r ab il ity

to carry ou t the ir Art ic le III fu nc ti on s.” M art in -Tri go nav. Sh aw, 98 6 F .2d13 84 , 13 86 –8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) (qu ot in g P ro cup v . Stri ck land , 79 2 F .2d10 69 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (en ba nc )). Thu s, al th ou gh co m pe ll in g t he

27Adm in is tra to r to ap pe ar i s ex tra or di na ry , itis inm y vi ew le ss so th anth e EPA’s bl at an t u nwi ll in gn es s t o abi de by the co urt’s co m m an ds . 1 Ext rao rd in ary orno t, h owe ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er fo r th e Adm in is tra to r to ap pe ar i s s up po rte d b y bi nd in g aut ho rit y . Firs t, i n Un it edSta te s 2 v. M or ga n, 3 13 U.S. 40 9 (1 94 1) , a cas e whi chun de rg ird s t hi s C ou rt’s d eci si on in Inre Un it edSta te s, 9 85 F.2d51 0, 5 12 (11 thCir . 19 93 ), th e Sec ret ary of 3 Agr ic ul tu re was no t o nl y subjec te d t o d ep os it io n, o ve r th e g ov ern m en t’s o bjec ti on , fo r pr oc eed in gs inwhi ch he was aparty, butals o “ ap pe aredinpe rs on at the tri al .” Although the underlying me rits of the Summary J udg ment Orde r may

eventua lly

be addr essed 1 on appea l, at this stage we must take the finding s of the district cour t as we r ece ive them. See J aff ree v. Wallace, 837 F .2d 1461, 1467 (11th Cir. 1988) (“ ‘The e stablished rule in the fe dera l courts is that a fina l judgment r etains all of its res judicata conse quence s pendingdecision of the appea l.’” (quoting18 C. W right, A. Miller, & E . Cooper, Fede ral Practice and Proc eduresec. 4433, at 308 (1981 & Supp. 1987))). As the majority

implies, we are bound only by Supreme Court pre cede nt and the holding s of 2 this Court. Thus, whil e I

agreethat we ought to respec t our sister circ uit’s prec edent a s persua sive, that authority does not control. In any

event, be cause no circ uit has analy zed a district court’s powe rs to compel witnesses in the c ontextof re calc itrance at the leve l of the EPA’s in this case, the ma jority ’s out-of- circ uit prece dent is distinguishable on its fac ts. In In re United States we c ited Morg an for the proposition that “the pra ctice of callinghigh 3 officia ls should be discourag ed.” 985 F .2d at 512. Howe ver, this desc ription ex pands upon what that case actua lly

stands for. In fac t, rather than discoura g ing the prac tice of solicitingtestimony from high level off

icials g ener ally , the Court in Morg an ac tually critiqued subjec ting the Secre tary to testifying be cause of his role in that case . As the Court explained, the underly ing litigation conc erne d a “pr ocee ding be fore the Secr etar y [that] ‘has a qua lity

rese mbling that of a judicial proce eding .’” 313 U .S. at 422 (quotation omitt ed). This be ing so, the Court rea soned that “[j] ust as a judg e ca

nnot be subjecte d to such scrutiny . . . so the integrity

of the administrative proc ess must be equa lly respe cted.” I d. (citation omitted). Thus, Morg an ac tually discourag es soliciting testimony from high level off

icials when the y

serve in a judicial ca

pacity . 28Mo rg an , 31 3 U.S. at42 2. Whil e th ere, “ [h ]e was qu es ti on edat l en gt h re gard in g

th e p ro ces s b y

whi ch he reac he d t he co nc lu si on s o f hi s o rd er, i nc lu di ng th e m an ne r an d e xt en t o f hi s s tu dy of th e rec or d andhi s co ns ul ta ti on s wi th subo rd in at es .” Id . Thatth e Sec ret ary ac tu al lytes ti fi ed un de rm in es —fa ta ll y

in m y es ti m at io n—th e g ov ern m en t’s fe ars ab ou t the ab il it y of t he Adm in is tra to r to bo th ap pe ar as a wit ne ss inex tra or di na ry cas es an d a ls o “ fu lfi ll he r ro le as acab in et of fic er.” Seco nd , “ itis . . . se tt le d t ha t [e ve n] th e Pre si de ntis subjec t t o ju di ci al pr oc es s i n app ro pr ia te cir cu m st an ces .” Cli nt on v. J on es , 52 0 U.S. 6 81 , 70 3 (1 99 6) (d is cu ss in g C hi ef J us ti ce M ars ha ll ’s “ru li ng th ata subp oe na du ces tec um co ul d b e di rect edto th e Pre si de nt ” (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Burr, 25 F. Cas . 30 (No. 14 ,69 2d ) (C.C. Va. 1 80 7) )). As a r es ul t, the m ajor it y “ errs by pres um in g t ha t in te ract io ns be twee n t he Ju di ci al Bran ch an d t he Exec ut iv e, ev enqu it e bu rd en so m e in te ract io ns , nec es sa ril y ris e to th e le ve l o f co ns ti tu ti on al ly forb id de n im pa irment o f th e Exe cu ti ve ’s abi li ty to p erfo rm it s co ns ti tu ti on al ly m an da te d fu nc ti on s.” C li nt onv. J on es , 52 0 U.S. at70 2. To th e co nt rary, As Mad is on ex pl ai ne d [in Fed eral is t 47 ], se pa rat io n of po wers do es no t m ean th at th e br an ch es “ ou gh t to ha ve n o pa rt ia l ag en cy in , or no co ntro ul ov er th e act s of each o t h e r . ” The fact th at a fed eral co urt’s ex erci se of it s tra di ti on al Arti cl e III juri sd ic t i o n m ay si gn ifi can tl y 29bu rd en th e ti m e an d at te nt io n of th e Ch ie f Exe cu ti ve is no t su ffi ci en t to

es tabl is h avi ol at io n o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on . Id . at 7 03 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) (em ph as is inori gi na l). Su rel y , if thi s b ur de n c anbe ex ert edup on th e Ch ie f Exe cu ti ve , th enitne ces sa ril y fol lo ws tha t Cabi ne t l ev el of fic ia ls canbe so bu rd en edas we ll . Fi na ll y , inli gh t o f th e ex te ns iv e d is ob ed ie nc e d is pl ay edby the EPA, I wou ldho ldth atth is cas e p res en ts th e ex ig en cy th atIn r e Uni te d S ta te s re qu ire s i n or de r to co m

pe l the tes ti m on y

of h ig h ra nk in g o ffi ci al s. 9 85 F.2dat 5 12 . In tha t cas e, th e Co m

m is si on er o f th e Fo odan d Dru g Ad m in is tra ti onres is te d asubp oe na to ap pe ar as a wit ne ss ina pr os ecu ti on of two cr im in al de fen da nt s wh o wer e accu se d o f vi ol at in g v ari ou s dru g re gu la ti on s. Id . at 5 11 . W e rec og ni zedth atth e no rm al m ean s t o fi gh t s uc h asubp oe nawou ldbe forth e Co m m is si on er t o di sr eg arditan d p la ce h im se lf i n c on te m pt , bu t ex pl ai ne d t ha t d oi ng so wou ld

“ im pl ic at e[] sep arat io n o f po wers co nc ern s,” d is tra ctth e Co m m is si on er fro m

hi s ot he r res po ns ib il it ie s, “ ha rm th e p ub li c p erce pt io n o f th e FDA,” an d “ pr ol on g t he li ti ga ti on of t hi s t an ge nt ia l i ss ue an d d el ay th e tr ia l o f th e u nd erl y in g c riminal of fen se .” Id . at 5 12 . As a res ul t, we h el d “ th ata writof m an da m us , if wa rr an te d , is th e ap pr op ria te rem edy .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) .

30By

th e p la in tex t o f th e o pi ni on , th en , we cau ti on edth atm an da m us is no t ap pr op ria te inall in st an ces inwhi ch a hi ghlev el off ic ia l i s ca ll edto tes ti fy . In st ead , we exp la in edth atm an da m us wou ldbe warran te d o nl y wher e

“ ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces or asp eci al ne edforth e [h ig h l ev el off ic ia l’s] te st im on y ” co ul d n otbe id en ti fie d. Id . W e co nc lu de d t ha t the fact s o f th at pa rti cu la r cas e d idno t p res en t s uc h c irc um st an ces , andas ares ul t af fo rd ed m an da m us rel ie f. Id. at51 2– 13 . As d is cu ss edab ov e—a ndat l en gt h b y th e d is tri ctco urt— su chex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces are p res en t h ere. In an y ot he r cas e, we wou ldim po se no th in g s ho rt of th e h ars he stsan ct io ns ag ai ns t a p riv at e p arty th atbe ha ve d i n am an ne r an al og ou s t o t he EPA. Ind eed , I wou ldbe sh oc ke d i f th e o nl y in te rm ed ia te co ns eque nc e to be fal l a c or po rat io n t ha t s o b raze nl y di so be y eda fed eral co urt Ord er was th atit s C EO was d ire ct edto tes ti fy ab ou t fu tu re co m

pl ianc e eff

orts . Bu t re ga rd le ss of any oth er co ns eque nc es , itis cle ar tha t the en ti ty’ s m os t s en io r m an ag in g o ffi ci al is th e ap pr op ria te in di vi du al to sp eakto ward s fu tu re co m pl ia nc e effo rts . As a res ul t, I ca nn otco nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n in requi rin g t he Adm in is tra to r to ap pe ar. An abu se of d is cret io n warran ti ng m an da m us oc cu rs when a co urt co m m it s “ [a] clea r erro r of

jud gm en t o r ap pl ic at io n o f anin co rrec t l eg al st an da rd .” Mo ha wk In du s., 5 41 F.3dat 1 05 5. 31Ju dg e Gol d h as do ne ne it he r.

I am well aware t ha t the off

en di ng party is ago ve rn m en t ag en cy , andso no rm al rem ed ie s m

us t b e ev al ua te d i n t he co nt ex t o f th e se pa rat io n o f po wers . Yet, t o c on cl ud e th atres pe ctfora co -equa l b ran ch m ean s we a re p owe rle ss to en fo rce o urjud gm en ts tu rn s t he do ctrin e o f se pa rat io n o f po wers onit s h ead . Thu s, I fi nditpe rp le xi ng th atou r fi de li ty to the no ti on of s ep arat io n o f po wers ha s le d t he m em

be rs of t hi s p an el to reac h d iff eren t co nc lu si on s. To be su re, I ag ree th at“ [t]he th reatto sep arat io n o f po wers is m or e subs tant ia l h ere t ha n i n In re Uni te d S ta te s.” Bu t I v ie w th e p ro pe r rem edy to th atth reatas t he di st ric t co urt’s subp oe na , whi ch is th e ap pr op ria te ch eckth ro ug h wh ic h t o re st or e th e d el ic at e ba la nc e b etweenth e Exe cu ti ve an d t he Ju di ci ary. See Th e Fed eral is t No . 51 , at 28 6 (Al ex an de r Ham il to n) (E.H. Scot t ed ., 18 98 ) (“ [T]he g reatsec ur it y ag ai ns t a gr adua l co nc en tra ti on of t he sev eral po wers inth e sa m e d ep artm en t, co ns is ts in gi vi ng to th os e who adm in is te r eac h d ep art m en t the ne ces sa ry co ns ti tu ti on al m ean s, an d p ers on al m ot iv es , to res is t en cro ach m en ts of the othe rs .”); acco rd Cl in to n v . Jo ne s, 5 20 U.S. at 6 99 n.3 0 (quo ti ng same). Becaus e in st eadth e 4 Irea d Fe dera list No. 78 to also support denying ma ndamus relief

in this case. In describing the 4 “lea st dang erous” branc h, Fe dera list No. 78 emphasizes the inherent we aknesse s of the Judi ciar y . See The Fe dera list No. 78, at 425–26 (Alexander Ha milton) (E.H. Scott ed., 1898). Rather than praise the se we aknesse s, howeve r, the text states that “all possible car e is requisite to ena ble it to defe nd itself ag ainst . . . attacks” from the other branc hes. I d. at 425. In my view, ther efor e, Fe dera list No. 78 cuts squarely against reve rsingthe district court. 32m ajor it y

ele ct s t o e xa cerb at e th atth reatwhi le at t he same tim e weak en in g t he ex tra or di na ry

na tu re o f m an da m

us , I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

33