Reed Rubinstein, Senior VP of litigation for Cause of Action:
“The fact remains, as Judge William Duffey said on the record, that this case is ‘a sad comment on [the FTC].’ We continue to believe that the FTC is exercising authority it does not have and using its power to punish a company that objected to agency overreach. We are studying Judge Duffey’s order and considering next steps.”
With the help of Cause of Action, Craig Zucker fought back against the government, and this settlement is evidence that the government caved under pressure. The CPSC’s actions regarding Craig Zucker are not about consumer safety, they’re about punishing an entrepreneur who dared to speak out against the federal government. The years spent by the CPSC targeting a product that has never been declared unsafe and pursuing overzealous litigation against Craig Zucker are yet another example of a federal agency gambling with taxpayer dollars to test its own power.
If the CPSC’s goal was consumer safety, why is it settling for an amount that covers less than one percent of its original $57 million recall estimate? To get the answer, Cause of Action is continuing to pursue our FOIA litigation against the CPSC to expose an agency that values retaliation against its critics above its own mission to protect consumers. The CPSC’s choice to settle proves that the government’s conduct was worthy of criticism.
Cause of Action, a government accountability group which filed an amicus brief in John L. Yates v. United States, released a statement today on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case:
Yates v. U.S. is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to check government over-reach and over-criminalization. A fisherman who allegedly threw overboard some undersized fish should not be prosecuted and imprisoned under a law written to prevent big corporate executives from shredding documents to cover financial fraud.
Cause of Action looks forward to supporting Mr. Yates.
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) announced today that the U.S. District Court of Appeals has approved a settlement in the long-running lawsuit regarding Regional Efficiency Standards for residential gas furnaces and central air-conditioners which were finalized by the Department of Energy (DOE) in October 2011.
The court stated, “The direct final rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 37408 (June 27, 2011), and notice of effective date, 76 Fed. Reg. 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011), as they relate to energy conservation standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces, including but not limited to the Department of Energy’s determination that such furnaces constitute a single class of products for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §§ 6295(q)(1)(B), 6295(o)(4), are hereby vacated and remanded to the Department of Energy for notice and comment rulemaking in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.”
You can find the settlement agreement here and the court’s order here.
Cause of Action, a government accountability group which has investigated former Department of Homeland Security acting Inspector General Charles Edwards, issued the following response to the report released today by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC), Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight:
In addition to being the subject of Thursday’s report released by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Charles Edwards is still under investigation today for allegations of misconduct by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).
Cause of Action’s own two-year investigation into Charles Edwards prompted us to raise concerns to President Obama about the destruction of records and complaints filed about his misconduct that would warrant Edwards’ removal from office and potential criminal liability. We know that the Office of Special Counsel forwarded at least one complaint about Edwards to CIGIE. Additionally, we sued the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) for failing to produce documents related to these misconduct complaints under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This lawsuit could have been avoided, as DHS OIG voluntarily provided such information to HSGAC. This transparency failure is now costing time and resources in court for what could have been a simple compliance with FOIA.
Under federal law, knowingly destroying records with the intent to obstruct an investigation or the proper administration of any department or agency of the United States is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both. Accordingly, CIGIE should complete its investigation as expeditiously as possible and refer evidence of criminal conduct to the Department of Justice, especially since Edwards remains employed at DHS in a managerial position.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
April 23, 2014 Mary Beth Hutchins, 202-400-2721
Court Holds That Challenge Brought in Fuel Cell Energy, et al v. Markell, et al Can Continue
WASHINGTON – On April 17, 2014, Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke held in Fuel Cell Energy, et al v. Markell, et al that a competitor disadvantaged by the Delaware Public Service Commission’s tariff to Bloom Energy can continue its challenge under the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits state laws that discriminate against out-of-state competition. The decision affirms that the plaintiff does have standing to claim that Delaware’s 2011 amendments to its Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act (REPSA) are unconstitutional. As Judge Burke stated, “Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the causal connection between the tariff and the competitive disadvantage that FuelCell alleges it will suffer.” FuelCell is represented by Cause of Action, a nonprofit government accountability group based in Washington, D.C.
The decision can be found here.
Some highlights from the decision include:
About Cause of Action:
Cause of Action is a non-profit, nonpartisan government accountability organization that fights to protect economic opportunity when federal regulations, spending and cronyism threaten it. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.
To schedule an interview with Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein, contact Mary Beth Hutchins, 202-400-2721.
###
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the majority cited Cause of Action’s amicus brief (page 36):
With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information. In 1976, the Court observed that Congress could regard disclosure as “only a partial measure.” Buckley, 424 U.S., at 28. That perception was understandable in a world in which information about campaign contributions was filed at FEC offices and was therefore virtually inaccessible to the average member of the public. See Brief for Cause of Action Institute as Amicus Curiae 15-16.
Read the opinion here.
Read our full brief:
Cause of Action’s McCutcheon v. FEC Amicus Brief by CauseOfAction