Business and oil-industry groups are urging a federal court to overturn BP’s suspension from receiving new government contracts, calling it a “disturbing” overreach that threatens other companies doing business with federal agencies.
The American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other groups filed a court brief on BP’s behalf in the oil giant’s case against the Environmental Protection Agency, which imposed the freeze in late 2012 following the disastrous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
EPA suspended BP, a major fuel supplier to the military, shortly after the company reached a $4 billion criminal plea deal over the spill, which was caused by a blowout of a BP well being drilled a mile beneath the ocean surface.
The business groups that filed a brief on BP’s behalf Monday say EPA’s suspension of all BP business units — regardless of whether they were connected to the accident — from new contracts with any federal agency sets a dangerous precedent.
“These expansive assertions of authority, and EPA’s actions pursuant to that authority, pose a grave threat to federal contractors and private industries with business touching on federal programs or federal lands,” states the brief that’s also supported by the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Ocean Industries Association, the Organization for International Investment, and the technology industry trade group TechAmerica.
They allege that EPA’s “unprecedented assertion of suspension power over affiliates” is illegal.
They want the court to overturn EPA’s designation of BP’s corporate headquarters as a “violating facility” and the suspension of the company’s affiliates lifted, noting it was BP Exploration and Production specifically that pleaded guilty to charges of felony manslaughter, environmental crimes, and obstruction of Congress.
Their brief was filed with the U.S. District Court in Texas where BP filed suit in August challenging the federal suspension. It argues that the implications of EPA’s approach, if BP loses the case, are “disturbing” and that enabling this “guilt by association” would have major consequences.
“If an entire corporate family is suspended or disqualified from federal programs, a cascade of impacts will follow,” the brief states, citing layoffs and harm to the broader economy.
The trade groups also warn of a ripple effect if federal contractors must “struggle with uncertainties” created by the threat of suspension of an entire corporation based on the improper conduct of a few employees of a single affiliate.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.