Moren, Harry2019-09-252019-09-252010-10-29200800461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175779"In Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Goldstene, the Ninth Circuit upheld a federal district court’s ruling that enjoined California from enforcing its recent regulations designed to reduce emissions from auxiliary engines on commercial, government, and military vessels operating within regulated California waters.1 The appellate court held that the regulations, enacted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA).2 The court acknowledged that under the CAA the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may authorize California to adopt emission standards, but noted that California “has neither sought nor obtained” such authorization.3 Although the Ninth Circuit’s ruling checked California’s assertion of jurisdiction over reducing these toxic emissions, the state is pursuing a CAA waiver from the EPA and simultaneously is attempting to draft new regulations that will not be preempted" (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderclimate ethicsgreenhouse effectlawPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsArticle