High Court Case Summaries on Environmental Law (Keyed to Percival, Schroeder, Miller, and Leape)
Author:
Staff, Publisher's Editorial
Edition:
8th
Copyright Date:
2019
26 chapters
have results for environment
United States v. Vertac Chemical Corp. 2 results
- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: A federal agency created in 1970 to coordinate governmental action to protect the environment.
- ...the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate.” The “Gore factors” are often used to arrive at what would be an equitable resolution. The sixth of these factors is the degree of cooperation by the parties with federal, state, or local officials to prevent any harm to the public health or the environment. Under the volumetric approach, Uniroyal’s (D) liability for the clean-up costs should be 1.76% of the balance of the clean-up costs incurred by the EPA. However, the application of the sixth “Gore factor” warranted an upward departure for Uniroyal’s (D) percentage of liability because, while Hercules (D) responded immediately to the EPA’s orders under § 106 of CERCLA and undertook extensive remediation, Uniroyal (D) took the position that it had cause to disregard those same orders. Consequently, Uniroyal’s (D) percentage of liability was properly increased to 2.6% and the percentage of liability...
- Open Chapter
- NEPA requires an EIS prior to any agency decision which would irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources to a federal action that could significantly affect the environment.
- (1) A proposed federal action may significantly impact the human environment if it either (a) deviates from the current character of the area where it will take place, or (b) combines with current impacts to create a cumulatively significant impact. (2) A federal agency must give the public notice and the opportunity to comment on proposed
- Open Chapter
Thomas v. Peterson 2 results
- COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY [CEQ]: NEPA § 202 creates this three-member group in the Executive Office of the President to gather information, review federal programs, and give an annual report on the state of the environment; the Council’s regulations may become binding on agencies by Executive Order.
- The U.S. Forest Service (D) approved construction of an access road into an area of forest called “Jersey Jack.” Because the Forest Service (D) determined that the road would not have a significant impact on the environment, it did not prepare an environmental impact statement [“EIS”] prior to approving the road. After approving the road, the Forest Service (D) also approved two timber sales in the area, again concluding that no EISs were necessary. Conservationists (P) sued to enjoin both the road and sales on several grounds, including the National Environmental Policy Act [“NEPA”]. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires an EIS for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” After the Supreme Court’s
- Open Chapter
Hanly v. Kleindienst 5 results
- (1) Did GSA use the correct standard, under NEPA, to determine that a proposed federal jail did not pose a significant adverse effect on the human environment? (2) Does a federal agency have to provide opportunity for public comment before it may submit a report finding no need for an EIS?
- impact the human environment if it either (a) deviates from the current character of the area where it will take place, or (b) combines with current impacts to create a cumulatively significant impact. (2) A federal agency must give the public notice and the opportunity to comment on proposed major federal actions prior to the agency’s decision on whether the action requires preparation of an EIS.
- ...impact. However, by including the word “significantly” in NEPA § 102(2)(C), Congress intended to distinguish the level of environmental impact requiring preparation of an EIS from the level that might be expected from just any federal action. CEQ guidelines require EISs for actions expected to be “highly controversial.” The term “controversial” here refers to situations where there is a dispute over the size, nature or impact of a proposed federal action, and not to the existence of community opposition to the project. Neither Congress nor CEQ has defined the term “significantly” as it is used in NEPA. Therefore, agencies must have some discretion in defining the term. The appropriate standard for reviewing GSA’s actions is the “arbitrary or capricious standard.” The proper test for determining whether an action will have a “significant” environmental impact is to examine (a) the extent to which the action will impact the environment beyond the current situation,... ...environment...
- The General Services Administration [“GSA”] (D) planned to construct a jail and other buildings in association with the federal courthouse in Manhattan. Residents and businesses (P) near the courthouse site sought an injunction to halt the planned construction under the National Environmental Policy Act [“NEPA”]. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires an Environmental Impact Statement [“EIS”] for any proposal for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” The Public Buildings Service of GSA (D), in charge of the courthouse project, operated under the guideline, issued by the Council on Environmental Quality [“CEQ”] that requires an EIS for any “proposed actions, the environmental impact of which [was] likely to be highly controversial.” The District Court denied an injunction, agreeing with GSA (D) that the project would not significantly impact the environment and no EIS was required. On appeal, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court...
- ...that it proposes an undertaking to show that no EIS is needed that is nearly as burdensome as preparing an EIS. Congress intended that agencies should prepare EISs whenever an action could fairly be argued to have a significant environmental impact, but likewise intended agencies to be free of the trouble and expense of EISs when an action carries no potential for significant harm. Thus, a low threshold is preferable because agencies would be better served to use their resources preparing an EIS in doubtful cases, than in preparing an equally elaborate report to show that an EIS is not needed. The CEQ guidelines support this interpretation when they state, “if there is potential that the environment may be significantly affected, the statement is to be prepared.” When the CEQ guidelines direct agencies to create EISs in cases “likely to be highly controversial,” CEQ means actions that will create public opposition, even if the environmental impacts are fairly predictable. The...
- Open Chapter
Sierra Club v. Peterson 4 results
- NEPA requires an EIS prior to any agency decision which would irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources to a federal action that could significantly affect the environment.
- (MacKinnon, Senior Circuit Judge) Yes. By approving leases that permitted oil and gas drilling without first considering an EIS, the Service (D) violated NEPA. The Service (D) claims that its environmental assessment was adequate to conclude that approval of the leases would cause no significant impact to the environment. Courts may overturn “no significant impact” findings only if the agency’s determination was “arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.” The D.C. Circuit uses a four-part test to review agencies’ “no significant impact” findings: the agency must (1) take a “hard look” at the proposed action; (2) “identify the relevant areas of environmental concern;” (3) make a convincing case that the action will ...case, the Service fails on the third point. The Service (D) cannot support its conclusion that there would be no significant impact on the environment as the result of leases, when the Service (D) does not reserve the right to preclude drilling operations. The...
- ...statement [“EIS”] for the entire area. The Service (D) approved leases containing various stipulations allowing the Service (D) to require the lessees to get approval from the Service for various activities. For areas designated “highly environmentally sensitive,” the leases contained No Surface Occupancy Stipulations [“NSO Stipulations”] that allowed the Service (D) to preclude certain activities. For the other areas, however, the leases contained no NSO Stipulations and thus, the Service (D) could not deny drilling permits requested by the lessees, although it could impose mitigating conditions on the drilling in those areas. Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act [“NEPA”] requires agencies to prepare and consider an EIS for any proposed action that could significantly impact the environment. Sierra Club (P) sued to stop the leases contending that the Service (D) and the Department of the Interior (D) had violated NEPA by approving the leases prior to...
- major agency decisions are made. The lawyers for the oil companies are trying to get the best leases, i.e., with the fewest restrictions, for their clients, while different divisions within the Forest Service have their own reasons (e.g., political pressure, budget) for wanting to speed up or slow down the whole process. What the court is articulating in this opinion is a course of action that can really step in and protect the environment despite all these various conflicting forces.
- Open Chapter
- SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): Sometimes abbreviated SEIS in court opinions, this is an EIS that is prepared after the so-called Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS] for a project has been issued because of new information that future stages of the project may significantly impact the environment; this is the case even if the project has been approved.
- (Stevens, J.) No. Because the Corps’ (D) decision not to prepare a second supplement to the EIS was based on issues of fact, the court may not set that decision aside unless it was arbitrary or capricious. NEPA does not explicitly state when EISs must be supplemented. NEPA requires EISs for two reasons: (1) to insure that agencies make well-informed decisions with regard to the environment, and (2) so that the public has adequate information about the agencies’ decisions. Thus, this Court held in ...for when to supplement is much like the rule for when an EIS is required in the first place: If major federal action is still pending when new information indicating that the remaining action could significantly impact the human environment, the responsible agency must prepare a supplemental EIS. In this case, the Corps (D) argued that the applicable standard for courts when reviewing an agency’s decision not to supplement is whether the decision was “arbitrary or capricious.” The ONRC (...
- Open Chapter
Protection of the Global Environment Your search matches the chapter title
American Mining Congress v. EPA 1 result
- (Mikva, J.) RCRA does not cover only solid waste that is discarded or thrown away. Unlike the majority, I believe the definition of “disposal” should be interpreted functionally. In other words, waste is “disposed of” if it poses a risk to health or the environment, the problem Congress intended to address in RCRA. Whether a manufacturer will reuse the material is irrelevant to the risks the material presents while it is being stored or transported.
- Open Chapter
Summers v. Earth Island Institute 1 result
- Earth Island (P) was an organization dedicated to protecting the environment. It, and other environmental groups, sought to prevent the Forest Service from enforcing regulations that exempted small fire-rehabilitation and timber-salvage projects from the notice, comment, and appeal process used by the Forest Service for more significant land-management decisions. The Service argued that the groups did not have standing to bring their claim.
- Open Chapter
- Wastes that the EPA lists as hazardous are regulated under subtitle C of RCRA. Wastes that are not listed are regulated under subtitle C if they have certain characteristics of hazardous waste, such as ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Household waste is not considered hazardous because it presumably consists of household garbage, such as food, papers, and containers. However, in tests leading up to this case, the ash generated by burning household waste flunked the EPA’s toxicity tests. In this case, the Court takes a somewhat convoluted route to reach a pro-environment decision. Even the EPA, in a 1992 memorandum, came out the other way and determined that § 3001 exempts the ash from regulation.
- Open Chapter
- The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA], commonly known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Here, the Court considers how far CERCLA’s reach extends, concluding that Shell was not the type of entity, under these facts, that should be held responsible for the cleanup.
- Open Chapter
- The National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] required all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of the agencies’ actions. Section 101 of NEPA set forth the general requirement that the federal government protect the environment through “all practical means and measures.” Section 101(b) specifically stated that federal officials had a duty to encourage “widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without . . . undesirable and unintended consequences” not inconsistent with “other essential considerations of national policy.” NEPA required agencies to perform two specific procedures. First, Section 101(2)(C) required agency officials to prepare detailed environmental impact statements [EISs]. The purpose of an EIS was to guide the agency’s decisionmaking, advise other agencies, and inform the public. Section 102(2)(E) required agencies to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives” to proposed actions. In direct response to NEPA, the Atomic Energy...
- Open Chapter
- The environmental effects on which the EA focused were those likely to arise from the increased number of roadside inspections of Mexican trucks and buses due to the proposed regulations. The EA concluded that these effects were minor and could be addressed in the inspections process itself. The EA also noted that the increase in inspection-related emissions would be at least partially offset by the fact that the safety requirements would result in an overall reduction in the number of Mexican trucks operating in the United States. Based on these assessments, the EA concluded that the issuance of the proposed regulations would have no significant impact on the environment, and thus the FMCSA issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and declined to prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS].
- After the FMCSA issued its regulations in March 2002, the respondents sued, arguing that the regulations were promulgated in violation of the National Environment Policy Act [NEPA] and the Clean Air Act. The court agreed and set aside the rules. The court concluded that the EA was deficient because it failed to adequately consider the environmental impact of lifting
- Open Chapter
- ...related to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Zoning is now necessary as a result of the tremendous increase and concentration of population. To determine whether a particular zoning ordinance exceeds a city’s police power, we must look at the particular circumstances at issue. We also look at the analogies in nuisance law. Expert reports have shown that separate residential zones contribute to the public welfare. Residential zones improve fire safety, increase safety in home life, reduce street accidents, decrease noise and resulting nervous disorders, and preserve a favorable environment in which to raise children. Apartment houses are often parasites that interfere with the free circulation of air and sunlight. They also create more noise and traffic, and, in residential neighborhoods, come close to being nuisances. Here, Euclid’s (D) ordinance is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and is substantially related to the public health, safety, morals, and general...
- Open Chapter
- CERCLA may be the most controversial environmental law ever enacted. Supporters praise it as a vital program to safeguard human health and the environment from irresponsible waste handling. Critics cite cost estimates ranging up to $750 billion, and deride the law as an extraordinarily expensive measure that imposes crippling liability on innocent parties to fund cleanups that are either unnecessary or largely ineffective. Here, the Supreme Court considers how to divide responsibility between multiple potentially liable parties, and it decides that apportionment of damages, as opposed to joint and several liability, is appropriate. But consider the discussion of the previous excerpt from this case, in which the Court held that Shell was not responsible for the damages. Reading the two excerpts together, it becomes clear that Burlington Northern (D) benefited greatly from this part of the Court’s decision.
- Open Chapter
Philadelphia v. New Jersey 1 result
- ...isolation” and protectionism because the legislation prevents interstate commerce. However, when the purpose of the legislation is to safeguard citizens’ health and safety, we must be more flexible. New Jersey (D) claims that its purpose in passing the law was to protect its environment and slow down the depletion of its existing landfills. Philadelphia (P) claimed that the purpose of the law was to suppress competition and stabilize the cost of solid waste disposal for New Jersey residents. However, New Jersey’s (D) actual purpose is not relevant; whatever its actual purpose, New Jersey (D) may not accomplish this purpose by discriminating against out-of-state parties, which this law clearly does. New Jersey’s (D) argument that this law is similar to quarantine laws, barring the importation of diseased livestock and other noxious articles, that have been upheld under the Commerce Clause is without merit. Unlike in the quarantine cases, there is no claim here that just moving...
- Open Chapter
Lead Industries Association v. EPA 1 result
- court notes that Congress intended standards under CAA § 109 to be so strict that they would force industry to invent and implement new technologies in order to comply. A critic of the NAAQS, Professor Krier, has two strong criticisms of these regulations. First, setting unachievable standards results in delay and expense, often without producing the hoped for levels. Second, setting national standards for ambient air may be misguided when various environments and topographies can create such different impacts, on both the cost and benefit sides, in different locales. Thus, Krier argued for flexibility in standards. The court in
- Open Chapter
- ...program. Section 402(k), the so-called “shield provision,” defines compliance with an NPDES or SPDES permit as compliance with § 301 for purposes of the CWA’s enforcement provisions. Atlantic States’ (P) view that the permits permit the discharge of identified pollutants and prohibit the discharge of unidentified pollutants is incorrect. The regulatory scheme makes it clear that polluters may discharge pollutants not specifically listed in their permits so long as they comply with the reporting requirements and abide by any new limitations when imposed on such pollutants. As the EPA points out, it is impossible to identify and rationally limit every chemical or compound present in the discharge of pollutants. The EPA addresses such discharges by amending the permit to list and limit a pollutant when necessary to safeguard the environment. EPA policy statements consider the possibility of large discharges of unlisted pollutants but take the position that the EPA will not take...
- Open Chapter
- ...Water Act moot, nor does it defeat plaintiff’s standing. The relevant showing for purposes of Article III standing is not injury to the environment, as Laidlaw (D) avers, but injury to the plaintiff. The trial court properly found that Friends (P) had sufficient injury to establish standing. It is undisputed that Laidlaw’s (D) unlawful conduct was occurring at the time the complaint was filed. The civil penalties that Friends (P) sought had a deterrent effect that made it likely that the penalties would redress their injuries by abating current violations and preventing future ones. Thus, we are satisfied that Friends (P) had standing under Article III. Turning to the issue of mootness, a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. A defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear that the challenged...
- Open Chapter
Dolan v. City of Tigard 1 result
- ...The majority’s “rough proportionality” test is inadequate. The inquiry should be whether a condition is so grossly disproportionate to the proposed development’s adverse effects that it manifests motives other than land use regulation. Dolan (P) has never argued that the City (D) should have prohibited her from building on the floodplain rather than requiring her to dedicate the land to the City (D). In fact, by dedicating the land, Dolan (P) need not pay taxes or be responsible for torts on that parcel. Dolan’s (P) failure to seek narrower relief should preclude that relief now. With respect to the bike path, the City (D) should not be required to quantify its effect. The assumption that traffic will be offset is perfectly reasonable. When there is doubt about the effect of development on the environment, the public interest must take precedence. The party challenging the government action should have the burden of proving that the conditions unreasonably impair the economic...
- Open Chapter
- ...decision was controversial. The decision has worn well over time, however, and influenced risk assessment in many federal agencies. The requirement that agencies determine a threshold of unacceptable or unreasonable risk became an accepted part of the regulatory scheme. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plurality decision was its use of the term “significant.” As the dissent noted, the word “significant” doesn’t appear in the sections of the OSH Act (§§ 3(8) and 6(b)(5)) being examined by the Court. The plurality argues that “safe” is not equivalent to “risk-free,” and many things that we consider safe entail risks (here, they cite everyone’s favorite examples: driving a car and breathing city air). Therefore, the plurality states, “a workplace can hardly be considered ‘unsafe’ unless it threatens the workers with a significant risk of harm.” This is what triggers the threshold finding requirement; the agency must make a finding that the work environment is...
- ...above 10 ppm. OSHA determined that benzene is a human carcinogen, that the industry could not show that there was any safe level for benzene exposure, and that the lowest feasible level for benzene exposure was 1 ppm. OSHA determined that the 1ppm standard would benefit 35,000 employees at an initial cost of over $450 million and an on-going annual cost of around $34 million. The Fifth Circuit struck down the permanent standard as well, finding that OSHA had not shown that the benefits of the 1 ppm limit were reasonably related to the costs of imposing such a standard. OSHA appealed to the Supreme Court on the question of whether OSHA was required to do cost-benefit balancing under the OSH Act. OSHA argued that § 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act required it to make rules that assured a safe working environment or at least reduced exposure to toxic substances as much as feasible, i.e., without driving the industry out of business. The industry argued that the “reasonably necessary and...
- Open Chapter
Kleppe v. Sierra Club 2 results
- ...] for “every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” The Department of Interior [“Interior”] (D) authorized leases, mining plans, and right-of-ways concerning federal coal reserves in four states in the northern Great Plains. The Sierra Club (P) argued that, because Interior (D) was proposing a comprehensive federal plan for the region, NEPA required Interior (D) to create an EIS for the entire region. The Sierra Club also contended that, even if Interior’s (D) plans did not constitute a comprehensive regional plan, NEPA required a regional EIS because the environmental impacts of various local actions were “intimately related.” The D.C. Circuit did not rule on the Sierra Club’s (P) second argument, but held in its favor on the first. The D.C. Circuit cited four factors for determining when NEPA requires a regional EIS: (1) the likelihood that the federal action will begin...
- environment,” NEPA § 102(2)(C) required the creation of an EIS. Interior undertook several EISs on proposals for local action. Moreover, Interior (D) had prepared a national Coal Programmatic EIS covering the comprehensive policy of the Department for coal extraction throughout the country. In its findings, the District Court determined that there was no regional plan or proposal, and that the local projects were not coordinated or integrated into any comprehensive scheme. The D.C. Circuit did not change these finding. The D.C. Circuit, however, created its four-factor test for establishing when an EIS may be required under NEPA even though no formal proposal for federal action has been made. This test is not supported by NEPA. In
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 3rd, 2018
- ISBN: 9781642425901
- Subject: Environmental Law
- Series: High Court Case Summaries
- Type: Case Briefs
- Description: Percival’s High Court Case Summaries on Environmental Law, 8th contain well-prepared briefs for each major case in this casebook. High Court briefs are written to present the essential facts, issue, decision and rationale for each case in a clear, concise manner. While prepared briefs can never substitute for the insight gained by actually reading a case, these briefs will help readers to identify, understand, and absorb the core “take away” knowledge from each case. Moreover, these briefs are followed by a useful legal analysis, which provides extra tips and contextual background about each case, connecting the case to the broader concepts being developed throughout the casebook. This book also supplies case vocabulary, which defines new or unusual legal words found throughout the cases.
