WASHINGTON - The judge cocked her head sideways as the young government lawyer tried to justify what the EPA had done: Not much.

U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer could barely contain her disgust. The EPA had repeatedly failed to set pollution limits for diesel ships entering U.S. ports, including Camden and Philadelphia. Following lawsuits, the EPA had promised that it would do so by 2003, then by 2007. Now, in April 2008, EPA was saying it might - might - follow the law and do it by 2009.

Collyer was no liberal. A Bush appointee, she had held two political posts during the Reagan administration. But now she cast a wary eye at the lawyer for the EPA.

"So you're saying EPA could just keep granting itself extensions?" Collyer asked.

Yes, the lawyer said.

The judge shook her head and invoked Peter Pan.

"It's Never-Never Land," she said.

The lawyer insisted that the EPA was working on the problem.

Incredulous, Collyer held up a thumb and index finger an inch apart. "This -" she said, holding her fingers aloft - "this is how much EPA has done."

The judge's exasperation with the EPA's manipulation of air pollution rules mirrored reactions in cases by other federal judges.

In a dozen cases since 2001, federal judges in Washington have used increasingly caustic language to throw out EPA regulations, chastising the Bush administration for illegally changing U.S. environmental rules. Most decisions were rendered by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The result: The EPA's most significant new air-pollution initiatives lie in tatters, creating uncertainty for those who worry about the environment and human health, as well as for businesses that have spent billions to meet new EPA standards that no longer exist. When the courts killed one Bush rule in July, the decision triggered immediate market losses that cost at least one Pennsylvania power company, PPL Corp. of Allentown, $33 million.

Taxpayers are losers, too. According to the EPA's own figures, the agency spent at least $53 million to create these now-defunct rules.

Most of the court decisions against the EPA were not close calls. Nearly every key appellate ruling on air pollution was unanimous and bipartisan. Two-thirds of the votes against the EPA were cast by judges appointed by Republican presidents, according to an Inquirer analysis.

"In modern environmental law, this is absolutely unprecedented," said James R. May, a Widener University law professor and chair of the American Bar Association's annual Environment and Energy Resources conference. "All across the spectrum, judges are finding that virtually every environmental initiative of the Bush administration is illegal."

An Inquirer analysis also shows that when the EPA is sued, it appears to treat industry as a friendlier foe than environmental groups.

Of the four dozen pollution cases filed in federal court in Washington, the EPA settled 80 percent of the lawsuits brought by industry. By contrast, the EPA settled only 15 percent of the cases brought by environmental groups.

In one case - in which utility companies challenged states' authority on pollution enforcement - the EPA settled with the utilities and then went one step further. The EPA rewrote the rule to take the industry position. The courts later said that the EPA acted wrongly, and threw out the revised rule.

Bush's senior environmental adviser, James Connaughton, said most of the decisions the EPA has lost have not been about the substance of the environmental rules, but about the legal process.

"You look at those cases and they have nothing to do with whether the air is getting cleaner," he said. "The EPA is pursuing flexible approaches that allow for even greater economic growth and development as we dramatically improve air quality."