Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Justice Delayed: Mercedes-Benz’s Diesel Pollution Remains Unprosecuted

To serve the cause of justice, law enforcement must be prompt, even-handed, and appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases. In their handling of an important recent pollution case, however, the enforcement activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have been none of those things.

The case involves the alleged use by Mercedes-Benz of software "defeat devices" in its diesel cars to override pollution control devices. There is considerable evidence that Mercedes' misconduct was intentional, and that over a period of years, its systematic cheating resulted in the emission of many times the allowable amount of nitrogen oxide – a pollutant that harms human health and contributes to climate change, smog, and other air pollution problems. In fact, one Mercedes diesel model's maximum emissions were found to be a whopping 91 times the emission standard.

The Mercedes-Benz defeat device scandal came to light in early 2016, prompting EPA and DOJ to launch investigations into Mercedes and its parent company, Daimler AG. However, since the Trump administration took office in January 2017, this investigation appears to have stalled. No enforcement action has been taken against Mercedes or any of its executives, and Trump administration officials have offered no explanation for the more than two-and-a-half-year delay in completing a review of the facts.

We know that U.S. authorities can move quickly in such cases because they did so when Volkswagen (VW) broke the law in the same way. In 2015, EPA received information that VW was using defeat devices on its diesel vehicles when they were driven on roads but not during testing, and, as a result, unlawfully emitting vast quantities of nitrogen oxides into the air. After 18 months of providing the regulators with bogus "explanations" for its diesel car pollution, VW ultimately admitted to California and EPA that its sophisticated cheating was the cause of the air pollution in question.

During the Obama administration, the government's responses to emissions cheating were firm and speedy. Only two weeks after receiving VW's grudging admission of its scheme, EPA issued a Clean Air Act Notice of Violation. Less than three months later, DOJ filed a civil lawsuit in federal court and undertook a criminal investigation into VW's misdeeds. Contentious negotiations followed, at the close of which DOJ obtained a record-breaking settlement. VW agreed to plead guilty to three criminal felony counts, to pay substantial criminal and civil fines, and to recall the vehicles and replace the defeat devices in them with legitimate pollution control systems. All told, federal authorities garnered $25 billion in fines, penalties, civil damages, and restitution from VW for the illegal diesels it sold in this country.

Both the VW and Mercedes cases appear to involve intentional wrongdoing by automakers who knowingly tricked federal and state regulators, and their own customers, by using identical techniques to bypass pollution controls and release significant amounts of air pollution. So why treat VW and Mercedes differently? The most logical explanation seems to be that the Trump administration is doing one more favor for a wealthy and powerful company by overlooking its egregious environmental violations.

As things stand now, the only credible explanation for the kid-glove treatment the Trump administration is giving Mercedes is that it's yet another example of the administration's wholesale abandonment of its obligation to faithfully execute the nation's environmental laws and protect Americans' health. Complaining about environmental regulations is a standard track on the president's rhetorical play list. This is what it translates to in the real world: Letting a rich company off the hook for deliberate cheating so that it can make a few extra bucks while polluting the air we all breathe.

Showing 2,822 results

Joel A. Mintz | October 16, 2018

Justice Delayed: Mercedes-Benz’s Diesel Pollution Remains Unprosecuted

To serve the cause of justice, law enforcement must be prompt, even-handed, and appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases. In their handling of an important recent pollution case, however, the enforcement activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have been none of those things. The case involves the […]

Lisa Heinzerling | October 11, 2018

Taming White House Review of Federal Agency Regulations

This post was originally published as part of a symposium on ACSblog, the blog of the American Constitution Society. Reprinted with permission. Presidents since Ronald Reagan have, by executive order, required agencies to submit significant regulatory actions to the White House for review. Academic and public interest observers have variously criticized this review as slow, […]

Rena Steinzor | October 11, 2018

The Major Rules Doctrine — A ‘Judge-Empowering Proposition’

This post was originally published as part of a symposium on ACSblog, the blog of the American Constitution Society. Reprinted with permission. Now that they have a fifth vote, conservative justices will march to the front lines in the intensifying war on regulation. What will their strategy be? Two tactics are likely, one long-standing and […]

Joseph Tomain | October 10, 2018

EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule: Putting Money on ACE Is a Bad Bet — Part II

Cross-posted from Legal Planet. If you've been reading this blog or otherwise keeping up with environmental law, you've probably heard this a hundred times: In rolling back Obama's signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration is relying on the idea that EPA's jurisdiction stops at the fence line. That is, according to the Trump folks, EPA can impose measures on each plant, but not measures that go beyond the fence line like requiring more use of renewable energy of a coal or natural gas generator. I've blogged previously about why this argument might not even apply because reducing your operating hours is something you can accomplish without getting close to the fence, let alone crossing it.

Joseph Tomain | October 8, 2018

The EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule: Putting Money on ACE Is a Bad Bet — Part I

This post is the second of a pair on the Trump administration's so-called "Affordable Clean Energy" (ACE) rule. You can read the first post here on CPRBlog.

Daniel Farber | October 8, 2018

Progressive Regulatory Reform

This post was originally published as part of a symposium on ACSblog, the blog of the American Constitution Society. Reprinted with permission. Until recently, you could be a very well-informed American – a lawyer, even – without ever having heard of the Chevron doctrine. That has changed enough that last month, The New Yorker had […]

Alejandro Camacho | October 5, 2018

The Hill Op-Ed: Blind Focus on ‘Energy Dominance’ May Cripple Endangered Species Act

This op-ed originally ran in The Hill. It was co-authored with Melissa Kelly, the staff director and attorney at the Center for Land, Environment, and Natural Resources (CLEANR). The bald eagle, sea otter, timber wolf — these iconic animals and more have been saved by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). But the Trump administration doesn't […]

Melissa Powers | October 3, 2018

The Trump Administration’s Acknowledgement of Climate Change Is Cynical — and Potentially Sinister

As Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis, and Chris Mooney of The Washington Post reported on September 27, the Trump administration seems to finally be acknowledging that climate change is real. But the motivation for recognizing that reality is cynical, at best, so rather than proposing doing something – anything – about climate change, the administration concludes […]

Robert Verchick, Sidney A. Shapiro | October 2, 2018

Environmental Justice Is Worth Fighting For

Originally published in The Regulatory Review as part of a series on social justice and the green economy. Reprinted with permission. The reactions to our article, Inequality, Social Resilience, and the Green Economy, have a clear message: We, environmentalists, have our work cut out for us. We wrote our article to start an overdue conversation about environmental policy and […]