杰克·祖克曼 / Signal Ohio富兰克林县一名法官上周叫停了一项州法律，该法律取消了俄亥俄州居民起诉污染邻居（如向天空排放烟雾、灰烬或其他烟气的钢铁厂或其他工业工厂）的特殊法律权力。
JAKE ZUCKERMAN/Signal Ohio A Franklin County judge blocked last week a state law that eliminated Ohioans’ special legal powers to sue polluting neighbors like steel or other industrial plants that spit smoke, ash or other fumes into the sky.
在短短几年内，这是环保利益相关方第二次成功阻止（至少暂时）废除空气滋扰规则的尝试，该规则已在俄亥俄州法律中存在了50多年。
This marks the second time in a short few years that environmental interests have managed to squash, at least temporarily, an effort to kill the air nuisance rule, which has been on the books in Ohio for more than 50 years.
富兰克林县普通法院法官朱莉·林奇上周作出的裁决指出，立法者指示州官员废除空气滋扰规则的指令被作为最后时刻修正案塞入州预算中，这违反了州宪法的一项规定，即立法只能涉及单一主题。
The ruling last week from Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Julie Lynch states that lawmakers’ directive to state officials to repeal the air nuisance rule, which was slipped into the state budget as an 11th hour amendment , violated a provision of the state constitution that says legislation can span only a single subject.
她说：“空气污染修正案与拨款或州政府运作无关。因此，它违反了宪法的单一主题规则。”
“The Air Pollution Amendment has nothing to do with appropriations or state operations. Therefore, it violates the Constitution’s one-subject rule,” she said.
空气滋扰规则相当简单。它规定，烟雾、灰烬、粉尘、污垢、酸、烟气、气体、蒸汽或其他物质的排放或逸散，如果危及公众或财产的健康、安全或福利，即属于非法滋扰。自1974年以来，该规则一直是俄亥俄州遵守联邦《清洁空气法》综合计划的一部分，该法是美国保护环境空气的基石法律。
The air nuisance rule is fairly simple. It says that the emission or escape of smoke, ash, dust, grime, acid, fumes, gas, vapors or others that endanger health, safety or welfare of the public or property is an unlawful nuisance. Since 1974 the rule has been a part of Ohio’s comprehensive plan to comply with the federal Clean Air Act, the bedrock law protecting ambient air in the U.S.
原告之一是辛辛那提地区的一名女子唐娜·巴林杰，她曾利用空气滋扰规则起诉位于巴特勒县和沃伦县地区、现由克利夫兰-克利夫斯公司拥有的邻近一家占地2800英亩的钢铁厂。过去，州政府和私人公民也曾使用该法律，其中包括一名居民曾从代顿地区一家核废料处理公司获得130万美元的和解金。
Among the plaintiffs is a Cincinnati-area woman named Donna Ballinger, who has used the air nuisance rule to go after a neighboring, 2,800-acre steel plant now owned by Cleveland Cliffs in the Butler and Warren county area. Both the state and private citizens have used the law in the past as well, including one resident who won a $1.3 million settlement from a Dayton-area nuclear waste disposal company.
取消该规则将阻止原告在联邦法院提起诉讼，一些原告辩称，新规则缩小了（甚至关闭了）在州法院提起诉讼的大门。
Removing the rule blocks plaintiffs from suing in federal court, and some of them argued that the new rules narrow, if not close, the door on state lawsuits as well.
林奇的裁决还废除了一个相关条款，该条款禁止俄亥俄州环境保护局在支持发出罚款或处罚时，考虑来自社区空气监测设备的数据。这些设备是私人拥有的传感器，当一些人觉得官员不相信他们的投诉时，就会部署这些设备。
Lynch’s ruling also killed off a related provision that prohibited the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency from considering data from community air monitoring devices to support the issuance of a fine or penalty. Those devices are privately owned sensors that some people deploy when they feel officials don’t believe their complaints.
俄亥俄州检察长办公室的一位发言人表示，他们正在审查该裁决并确定后续步骤。他没有回答该州是否计划对该决定提出上诉。
A spokesman for the Ohio Attorney General’s office said they are reviewing the ruling and determining next steps. He didn’t answer whether the state plans to appeal the decision.
参与诉讼的环保组织，如俄亥俄环境委员会和凯斯西储大学环境法诊所，欢呼该裁决为一场胜利。
Environmental organizations like the Ohio Environmental Council and Case Western Reserve University’s Environmental Law Clinic that participated in the lawsuit hailed the ruling as a victory.
“废除‘空气滋扰规则’从未受欢迎，也从未合理，俄亥俄州自己的记录显示，它是公众和州政府机构用来追究大型污染者责任的关键工具，”塞拉俱乐部中西部“超越煤炭”运动经理尼尔·瓦格纳说。
“The repeal of the Air Nuisance Rule has never been popular nor justified, and the State of Ohio’s own records show it’s a critical tool the public and state agencies use to hold big polluters accountable,” said Neil Waggoner, the midwest Beyond Coal campaign manager for the Sierra Club.
“法院的裁决很明确，俄亥俄州应迅速终止目前的废除行动，不应再采取任何进一步行动来破坏该规则。”2019年，生产炼钢用焦炭、并因空气排放违规在俄亥俄州被反复指控的SunCoke公司，聘请了一家律师事务所游说美国环保局，将“空气滋扰规则”从俄亥俄州的《清洁空气法》实施计划中移除。
“The Court’s ruling is clear, and the State of Ohio should move expeditiously to end the current repeal effort and should not take any further action to undermine the rule again.”In 2019, SunCoke, which makes coke used in the steelmaking process and has been repeatedly accused of air emissions violations in Ohio, hired a law firm that lobbied the U.S. EPA to remove the air nuisance rule from Ohio’s Clean Air Act plan.
行政法中的大多数此类变更都需要一个相当稳健且透明的流程。但正如该公司所主张的，以及唐纳德·特朗普总统领导下的环保局所同意的，最初制定该法律的决定被称为一个技术性的“错误”，这使其可以迅速进行更改。
Most such changes in administrative law require a fairly robust and transparent process. But as the company argued, and the EPA under President Donald Trump agreed, the decision to create the law in the first place was referred to as a technical “error,” which freed it up for a swift change.
巴林杰和一系列不同的环保倡导组织起诉环保局以阻止这一举措。长期的法律施压与总统政府的更迭相结合，最终导致该规则于2025年2月恢复。
Ballinger and a suite of different environmental advocacy organizations sued to stop the EPA. A mix of drawn out legal pressure and the change in presidential administration eventually led to the rule’s reinstatement in February 2025.
大约在那个时候，立法者们介入了这个问题，并得到了 SunCoke、Cleveland Cliffs 以及商会等企业的支持，他们正在制定该州的预算。
Around that time, lawmakers stepped in on the issue – drawing support from SunCoke, Cleveland Cliffs and the Chamber of Commerce – as they crafted the state budget.
参议员们通过一项紧急通过的修正案，有效地削弱了这项规定的效力；这项修正案在立法程序即将完成之前被提交并获得了通过。该修正案要求俄亥俄州环境保护局（Ohio EPA）将该规定从俄亥俄州的《清洁空气法》（Clean Air Act）计划中删除。作为基尔特兰（Kirtland）选区的共和党人，参议院财政委员会主席杰里·西里诺（Jerry Cirino）拒绝透露是哪位参议员提出了这项修正案。
Senators effectively neutered the rule by requiring the Ohio EPA to remove it from Ohio’s Clean Air Act plan. They did so via a late-breaking amendment passed just before the legislation passed. Senate Finance Chairman Jerry Cirino, a Kirtland Republican, has declined to say which senator proposed it.