The Environmental Protection Agency must hand over records associated with companies' applications to make new chemicals, a federal judge has ruled, a victory for environmental groups that sued the agency for allegedly failing to make those records public as required by law.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act creates a public right to information about the applications, and that the EPA's failure to comply with it can be reviewed by courts.
The lawsuit was brought by the Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Defend Our Health, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club.
"This new ruling will strengthen the public's ability to exercise that right," Samantha Liskow, an attorney at EDF, said in a statement. The groups have said that a lack of transparency prevents them from being informed about, and participating in, the EPA's review of new chemicals.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency was reviewing the decision.
The groups first sued the EPA in 2020, saying that the agency had repeatedly failed to make most information submitted as part of new chemical applications available on an online public docket as required by law. They said that the EPA failed to make public, or delayed making public, records for more than 250 applications, and further said that the agency's failures were part of a broader "pattern or practice."
During the course of the litigation, the EPA had agreed to turn over some information, and has said that it has changed its practices to address the groups' concerns. The agency argued that its actions had made the lawsuit moot and that it should be dismissed, but AliKhan disagreed.
"Because there is nothing to prevent the EPA from reverting to its 'old ways,' plaintiffs' claims are not moot," AliKhan wrote.
She also rejected the EPA's arguments that its actions were not reviewable. She said that the Toxic Substances Control Act specifically gave parties the ability to challenge the EPA for violating its duties under the law.
AliKhan denied the agency's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel the agency to produce the full administrative record associated with each of the plaintiffs' claims. She ordered both sides to confer and submit a joint proposed order on what specifically is included in the administrative record by Sept. 17.