The Supreme Court Revisits the Environment: Seven Cases Decided or Accepted in the 2003-2004 Term (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (13 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Sept. 7, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RL32569 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Robert Meltz, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
In the Supreme Court's 2003-2004 term, concluded June, 2004, the Court accepted for review
seven
environmental cases -- an unusually large number. Five decisions were handed down during the
term, and two cases were carried over to the upcoming 2004-2005 term.
Of the five decided cases, three involve the Clean Air Act (CAA). Alaska Dep't of
Environmental Conservation v. EPA asked whether EPA may issue CAA enforcement orders
that
effectively overrule a permit issued by a state under its EPA-approved air program. The Court said
yes, though only by a 5-4 margin. In Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality
Management District , the Court held that the CAA preempts a state from compelling local
vehicle
fleet operators to buy new vehicles from the state's list of low-emission models. And Dep't of
Transportation v. Public Citizen spoke to whether DOT safety regulations whose
promulgation
allowed Mexican trucks greater range in the United States must be preceded by environmental
analyses under the CAA and National Environmental Policy Act. Because DOT lacks discretion to
prevent the truck movement, said the Court, the added emissions from that movement did not have
to be considered.
The other decided cases are, first, South Florida Water Management District v.
Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians , holding that a point source of discharges into U.S. navigable waters must
obtain
a Clean Water Act permit despite the fact that the point source itself did not add the pollutants in the
discharged water. Second, Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance clarified the
availability
of judicial review of federal agency inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows
review of agency action "unlawfully withheld."
Environmental cases to be heard in the 2004-2005 term are Cooper Industries, Inc. v.
Aviall
Services, Inc. , addressing when contribution actions are available under the Superfund Act,
and
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC , which wrestles with the scope of federal preemption
of state law
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
It is not apparent why the Court has chosen this moment to enlarge its environmental docket.
No unifying theme is apparent in the accepted cases, and why some of them piqued the Court's
interest is perplexing. There are some commonalities, however. All seven cases raise principally
statutory, rather than constitutional, issues. The results, in the cases decided so far, lean against the
"environmental" side, though not exclusively so. And three of the seven cases turn on the nature of
the federal-state relationship, a favorite theme of the current Court.
