Question

Congress passed a law allowing widespread oil exploration on federal lands in the western United States. A large deposit of oil sand was discovered in one western state and Congress authorized an oil sand refining plant to be built on federal park land within the state. The refinery was built in compliance with federal pollution regulations. Pursuant to state law, the plant manager allowed the state to inspect the plant before putting it into operation. Because state refinery standards were more strict than the federal standards (in order to better protect state citizens from pollution associated with refineries), the refinery did not pass the inspection, and the state inspector refused to give the manager a permit to run the refinery. The refinery manager nevertheless began to run the refinery and was fined by the state.

Which of the following is the manager's best defense against imposition of the fine?

A) The state does not have a compelling interest in regulating the refinery, because it is within a federal park
B) The state regulation is invalid because Congress has preempted the field of pollution control
C) The state pollution regulation is invalid because it is inconsistent with the state's compelling interest in providing jobs
D) The state law violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to the manager

Answer 1

Answer: D. The state law violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to the manager

Step-by-step explanation:

Based on the information given, the manager's best defense against the imposition of the fine is that the state law violates the principles of intergovernmental immunity as applied to the manager.

We should note that unless Congress agrees to a particular regulation, the state doesn't have the power to regulate federal government activities and therefore cannot interfere with federal functions. Therefore, the regulation in this case isn't applicable to the manager.