Opinion ID: 400063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: court costs

Text: 16 The environmental and the industry petitioners, along with the District of Columbia, ask for reimbursement of court costs. For the same reasons and in the same areas that we allow the environmental groups' attorneys' fees, they should recoup their costs. 30 The industry parties' problem, however, is more complicated. They seek a recovery solely on the basis of the general costs statute 31 and Appellate Rule 39(a). 32 These provisions sanction cost awards only to winning parties, and in this large and complex body of cases none of the principals clearly prevailed. Reaching further outward, EPA asserts-without, however, citing any authority-that the industry parties could not found their cost claims on Section 307(f) because, they say, Congress obviously did not intend to subsidize all litigation under the Clean Air Act, and hardly contemplated the availability of Section 307(f) to financially resourceful parties who out of their own substantial economic interests would have litigated anyway. There is some support for this position, 33 and the industry group has made no response whatsoever to EPA's contentions on that score. Courts have long declined to render decisions on important questions of far-reaching significance which have not been argued by the party who might benefit therefrom. 34 The exigencies of sound decisionmaking require us to decline for the moment an undertaking to interpret a statute the industry parties do not invoke, or explore a theory they do not advance, and accordingly we deny costs to them. 17 As to two smaller matters, however, the results of our consideration differ. We think EPA should reimburse the industry petitioners for the expense of copies of the legislative history appendix provided to it, 35 and for the outlay for transcripts of the oral argument in this court. 36 These represent EPA's share of the total spent by the industry petitioners, who took the lead in the preparation of these items, and EPA has conceded its responsibility for a portion of such expenditures. 37 18 The District of Columbia seeks costs for its role in the litigation. Because it prevailed on both of the points it raised in its petitions, the District is, under the general costs statute, 38 entitled to be fully 39 recompensed for its costs. 40 19 An order will be entered to effectuate the rulings set forth herein. OUTLINE OF DISSENT 20 Page I. OVERVIEW ............................................ 8 II. THE MEANING OF APPROPRIATE ........................ 9 A. Applicable Statutes .............................. 9 B. Legislative History ............................. 10 C. Analysis ........................................ 13 1. Congress intended a prevailing-plus standard ................................... 14 2. The plus has no judicially cognizable meaning .................................... 15 a. Sierra Club and the non-frivolous standard ............................... 15 b. The public interest standard .......... 18 c. Conclusion .............................. 24 III. THE INSTANT LITIGATION ............................. 25 A. General Disposition ............................. 25 B. Remaining Issues ................................ 29 1. Enviromentalist briefs duplicative of the EPA's ............................... 29 2. Other issues ................................ 31 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................... 32 APPENDIX to dissent ...................................... 32