[ ]

Tag: AdministrativeLaw

Posted on

West Virginia v. EPA 

Date: 30 June 2022 

Court: Supreme Court of the United States 

Citation(s): West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) 

Short summary  

Conservative states and coal companies challenged potential rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency which could phase out electricity generation from coal-fired power plants in the United States. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with petitioners, holding that the Clean Air Act does not permit such extensive regulations. As a result, it is now significantly more difficult for the federal government to limit carbon emissions absent new legislation from Congress.  

Summary by: David Cremins

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision is binding on all United States federal and state courts. 

Key facts 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from certain sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA). See Massachusetts v. EPA. Following Massachusetts, typically only the federal government can be sued for failing to adequately limit (or overly limiting) carbon pollution under the CAA, see City of New York v. Chevron; American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, and then usually only by states, not individuals, see Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon.  

Under § 111 of the CAA, EPA can develop a “best system of emissions reduction” to limit their accumulation in the atmosphere. Historically, this authority has been exercised by, for instance, requiring both new and existing power plants to utilize certain technologies to limit carbon emissions. The implementation of these rules is then carried out by the states. See Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA. With the need to quickly decarbonize to combat the climate crisis, however, the EPA has, under Democratic presidential administrations, sought to curtail carbon emissions more aggressively from the U.S. energy sector, especially from coal-fired power plants.  

Previous instances  

In 2015, under the Obama Administration, the EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule which, in part, encouraged “generation shifting” from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power plants and renewable energy sources via a system of credits and offsets, as part of a cap-and-trade system. In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked implementation of the CPP rule and, under the Trump Administration, the EPA instead proposed the less ambitious Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, claiming that § 111(d) of the CAA did not allow it to issue industry-wide generation-shifting rules as part of a best system of emissions reduction. Several states sued the EPA for unduly constraining its own authority and the D.C. Circuit agreed, blocking the ACE rule in American Lung Association v. EPA, No. 19-1140 (D.C. Cir. 2021). West Virginia and other states, along with private coal companies, then intervened and brought this case to the Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the D.C. Circuit’s holding and prevent the EPA from ever again promulgating a rule like the CPP. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14

Date of judgement: 20 April 2010

Court: International Court of Justice 

Citation(s): Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14

Short summary 

The court introduced the concept of binding environmental impact assessments (EIAs) into international environmental laws and further elaborated upon the provisions of the International Law Commission’s draft, as well as the Trail Smelter decision. 

Summary by: Robert Los

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This decision handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) bears immense weight.  

Key facts

In October 2003, the Uruguayan government granted permission to a Spanish Company, ENCE, to build a pulp mill in Fray Bentos on the River Uruguay. Botnia, a Finnish company, then also received environmental authorization to build a mill in February 2005. The River Uruguay forms a border between Argentina and Uruguay and its use is regulated by the Statute of the Uruguay River, a bilateral treaty entered into by the two countries in 1975 (the “Statute“).

Argentina brought a complaint before the ICJ on 4 May 2006, alleging that the Uruguayan government had violated the Statute. Argentina initially sought a provisional measures order from the ICJ to suspend construction of the pulp mills, but this was dismissed. 

Argentina’s principal claims were that: 

  • Uruguay had not complied with the notification and consultation procedure set out in the Statute by authorizing the construction of two pulp mills without the prior consent of Argentina; and 
  • The mills would have an environmental impact upon the river and surrounding areas, and in particular that they would breach Uruguay’s obligation under the Statute to preserve the aquatic environment of the river by failing to protect biodiversity and fisheries.

Argentina consequently sought compensation, an end to construction, and a guarantee of compliance with the Statute in the future.

Uruguay argued that its only obligations had been to inform Argentina, which it had done, albeit after its decision had been made. Furthermore, the technology used would avoid polluting the river, as state-of-the-art waste cleansing equipment – which had been adopted by both the United States and the European Union as the best available technology – was going to be used. This position was supported by an independent World Bank study. 

Summary of holding

The ICJ held that Uruguay breached its procedural obligations by not informing the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay (“CARU”) of its plans to construct the mills before it issued its environmental authorisations. 

Although Uruguay did notify Argentina, this communication did not take place through CARU and only occurred after the Uruguayan government had issued its authorisations. The ICJ held that, as a result, Uruguay had “disregarded the whole of the cooperation mechanisms provided for in Article 7 to 12 of the…Statute“ (para. 149). In terms of remedy, the ICJ considered that its declaration of breach constituted appropriate satisfaction.

However, the ICJ did not uphold any of the environmental claims made by Argentina. In what is potentially the most important passage of its holding, it stated that the need for an environmental impact assessment (where there is a risk that the proposed activity may have a significantly adverse impact in a trans-boundary context) has gained so much acceptance amongst States that it may now be considered “a requirement under general international law“. (para. 204)

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon 

Date: 17 October 2013 

Court: United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Citation(s): Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1141-46 (9th Cir. 2013) 

Short summary  

Washington state residents and non-profits sued the Washington State Department of Ecology over its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court below and held that Plaintiffs failed to show standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution by failing to establish causation for and the redressability of their injuries. 

Summary by: David Cremins

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals holds precedential authority in the Ninth District (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, and Alaska) and persuasive authority in other U.S. Circuits.  

Key facts 

Washington State has five oil refineries subject to regulation under § 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to define greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits (known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]) for these refineries, which accounted for about 6% of Washington’s state emissions in 2008.  

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to hear “cases and controversies” between parties with an adversarial interest in a judicial ruling. Standing doctrine has been most notably developed in the context of environmental suits by the cases described below. 

Previous instances  

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), established that environmental plaintiffs must establish 1) a concrete, particular injury they have suffered or will imminently suffer that 2) is causally related to the (in)action of the actor they are suing and 3) that a court order could sufficiently redress their harm.  

Massachusetts v. EPA held that GHGs are air pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA, a major win for environmental litigation. However, it also put in place a heightened standard for standing for non-state actors seeking to enforce EPA regulations, e.g., by promulgation of specific NAAQS in states’ SIPs.  

Summary of holding 

Plaintiffs’ claim (that Washington’s SIP failed to establish NAAQS that limited GHG emissions at key refineries) is not addressable by courts because they lack Article III standing. Non-profit environmental groups and individuals plausibly sustain economic, recreational, and health injuries due to CO2 pollution and attendant climate change. However, the chain of causation between these refineries’ GHG emissions and global climate change is too weak and attenuated to satisfy the second prong of the standing test. Further, any order to regulate these refineries would have a negligible effect on redressing plaintiffs’ localized injuries incurred because of global temperature rise. This is distinguishable from Massachusetts, wherein Massachusetts was afforded relaxed standing requirements due to its status as a quasi-sovereign, thereby satisfying Lujan. This “special solicitude” does not extend to these non-state litigants, and even if it did their claims would still be tenuous. 

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation 

  • This case demonstrates the difficulty of achieving standing before United States federal courts in cases concerning specific harms from global climate change. It is one of many cases that could demonstrate this proposition, but it is notable because it involves a liberal-leaning court refusing to enjoin a liberal state from enacting federally mandated regulation of its fossil fuel emissions.  
  • Such standing issues may not be as prevalent in migration cases where an injury is already established, and a government agency’s action can provide a clear remedy, such as resettlement.  
Posted on

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut 

Date: 20 June 2011 

Court: United States Supreme Court 

Citation(s): Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) 

Short summary  

Individuals and groups sued electric companies emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide on federal common law grounds. The Supreme court unanimously ruled that, under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the exclusive authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, displacing any claims against polluters that seek direct judicial regulation.  

Summary by: Gazal Gupta

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision is binding on all United States federal and state courts.  

Key facts 

Several non-profit groups and states claimed violations of federal common law against five private energy corporations emitting significant greenhouse gases (GHGs) (650 million annual tonnes as a group). Plaintiffs argued that significant contributions to global warming constituted interstate nuisance and allowed them to seek a court order limiting GHG emissions from Defendant’s plants. Defendants responded that, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exclusive authority to regulate GHGs.  

Previous instances  

Since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), there has been no general federal common law recognized by courts in the United States. 

In Massachusetts v. EPA, carbon dioxide and other GHGs were held to fall within the scope of the CAA for regulation by EPA, and states were granted standing to sue for harms incurred by climate change.  

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court which first heard this case and ruled that petitioners had standing and stated administrable nuisance claims not pre-empted by the grant of regulatory authority to the EPA under the CAA. 

Summary of holding 

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit on petitioner’s standing but unanimously reversed on the administrability of their claims, holding that § 202(a) of the CAA displaced federal common law by granting the EPA the sole power to regulate GHGs. 

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation 

  • Creative legal strategies invoking older traditions from federal common law in the United States are unlikely to succeed, especially when a certain field of regulation or enforcement has been occupied by an agency such as the EPA. Harms incurred by climate change should be litigated primarily on statutory grounds in the United States. 
Posted on

Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia 1168 

Date: 10 December 2009  

Court: Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia

Citation(s): 0907346 [2009] RRTA 1168

Short summary 

Australia does not have an obligation to accept climate migrants with no fear of specific persecution in their home country as refugees under its domestic adoption of the Refugee Convention. 

Summary by: Lucas Robinson  

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia bears moderate weight in immigration cases in the Commonwealth of Australia. 

Key facts 

The applicant was a citizen of Kiribati who arrived in Australia in 2007 and applied for a Protection visa under §65 of the Migration Act 1958 in May 2009. The application was denied by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in August 2009. 

The applicant claimed that the environmental and economic changes in Kiribati caused by rising sea levels made it impossible for him to earn a living there. In his application, he claimed that some of the islands in Kiribati had already disappeared, and saltwater was springing up through the ground and spoiling the drinking well water, as well as devastating food crops. The applicant’s health had been directly impacted because of the loss of food crops on Kiribati.  

The applicant submitted that these impacts on him constituted persecution that should trigger protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Migration Act 1958.  

Previous instances

The application for review by the RRTA was sought after the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection Visa under §65 of the Migration Act 1958. 

Summary of holding 

The RRTA affirmed the Minister’s decision not to grant the applicant a Protection Visa, finding that in the absence of a discriminatory motivation, Australia’s protection obligations were not triggered. The Tribunal held found that the continued production of carbon emissions that cause climate change is not sufficient to constitute persecution under the Refugee Convention as there was no evidence that the persecution the applicant was fearing was occurring because of his membership to any particular group (or any other protected ground for refugee status). People affected by climate change were not recognized as a cognizable group of people in need of protection. Because the applicant was not part of a particular group, he did not fit the convention definition of a refugee. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation 

Date: 18 November 2009

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Citation: 647 F. Supp. 2d 644

Short summary  

Hundreds of thousands of homes were lost in Hurricane Katrina and most homeowners’ insurance policies excluded them from compensation. This led many victims of Katrina to sue the United States government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) failed to properly maintain the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, leading to the breach of one of New Orleans’ levees. The District Court held the U.S. was not immune from such a suit and held the Corps liable to some of the plaintiffs. This judgment was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the U.S. has sovereign immunity under the FTCA from such claims. 

Summary by: David Cremins

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The ruling by the Eastern District of Louisiana District Court, insofar as its logic was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, holds precedential authority in the Fifth District (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) and persuasive authority in other U.S. Circuits (see, e.g., favourable analysis in the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois). However, this ruling has subsequently been read narrowly by the same Eastern District court (holding there must be “ample record evidence” the government neglected its duty to maintain waterways implicated in flooding).  

Key facts 

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA; 28 USC §171), the U.S. government is immune from liability if its (in)action can be classified as a discretionary function (i.e., a policy decision left to an agency via legislation) rather than a specifically delegated ministerial duty not executed with due care.  

Under the Flood Control Act (FCA; 33 USC §702c), the U.S. government is immune from liability for damage stemming from its flood control efforts.  

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) were charged with construction, maintenance, and operation of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a navigational channel. This mandate was separate from the Corps’ efforts directed at flood control and levee construction and maintenance in southern Louisiana.  

Over decades, the Corps failed to prevent the MRGO from expanding well beyond its intended width, destroying wetlands which are protective against storm surges. This in contravention of the National Environmental Policy Act and despite repeated internal and external reports warning of the danger of not shoring up the MRGO’s banks. This failure was a substantial cause of the breach of a levee, leading to catastrophic flooding of St. Bernard parish in the New Orleans metropolitan area.  

Previous instances  

This case relies on Central Green v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001), wherein Justice Stevens held that the U.S. was not entitled to immunity under the FCA from damage caused by any and all flood waters. Instead, the government must show that flooding is connected with projects serving a primarily flood control purpose, in order for mismanagement of such projects to grant immunity.  

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Massachusetts v. EPA

Date: 2 April 2007 

Court: Supreme Court of the United States 

Citation(s): Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) 

Short summary  

Massachusetts, as well as individual and organizational petitioners, sued the Environmental Protection Agency for its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the authority granted it by the Clean Air Act. A narrowly divided United States Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts had standing in the suit, and that the Agency neglected its statutory duty to regulate air pollutants, including carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming.  

Summary by: Vaughn Rajah  

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision is binding on all United States federal and state courts. However, it has already been curtailed in subsequent cases. See West Virginia v. EPA.

Key facts 

In 1999, private organisations filed a rulemaking petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating emissions of four greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide (CO2), under § 202(a)(1) of 42 U.S.C.S. § 7521(a)(1), the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA requires EPA to prescribe standards applicable to emission of “any air pollutant” from any class of new motor vehicles which, in the EPA Administrator’s judgment, caused or contributed to air pollution reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In 2003, EPA under the Bush Administration issued an order denying the petition, asserting that the CAA did not authorise EPA to address global climate change and that, in any event, executive policy addressing global warming warranted EPA’s refusal to regulate in such area.  

Previous instances  

Private organisations, joined by intervenor states and local governments, sought review of EPA’s order refusing rulemaking in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied review, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

One reason the D.C. Circuit denied hearing was its internal split on standing. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to hear “cases and controversies” between parties with an adversarial interest in a judicial ruling. Standing doctrine had, prior to Massachusetts, been most notably developed in the context of environmental suits by Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Lujan established that environmental plaintiffs must show 1) a concrete, particular injury they have suffered or will imminently suffer that 2) is causally related to the (in)action of the actor they are suing and 3) that a court order could sufficiently redress their harm.  

Summary of holding 

The questions before the Court were: Do any of the petitioners have standing to challenge EPA’s order refusing to make a rule regulating GHGs? If so, must the EPA regulate emissions of GHGs?  

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA 

Date: 21 January 2004 

Court: Supreme Court of the United States  

Citation(s): Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) 

Short summary  

Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation determined what pollution-restricting technology should be implemented for a mine expansion, per requirements of the Clean Air Act. The federal Environmental Protection Agency intervened, disagreeing with Alaska’s determination of which technology to utilize. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency properly overruled Alaska’s initial determination.  

Summary by: Gazal Gupta 

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision is binding on all United States federal and state courts.  

Key facts 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), state agencies must identify the best strategy to prevent air quality from deteriorating in regions that comply with national air quality standards. In part, they must ensure that polluting industries utilise the “best available control technology” to restrict pollution whenever they construct new facilities. Teck Cominco Alaska, a mining firm, applied for a permit to develop a new generator at one of its mines in 1998. The permit was issued by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and it required Cominco to use “Low NOx” technology in all its generators, not just the new one. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intervened, claiming that a more advanced technique was available and should be utilized.  

Previous instances  

The EPA’s decision was challenged by ADEC in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the EPA lacked the authority to interfere with the state agency’s decision under the CAA. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favour of the EPA. 

Summary of holding 

On appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to settle whether if the EPA, under the CAA, has the authority to overrule a state agency’s decision that a company is using the “best available controlling technology” to prevent pollution. 

§ 165(a)(4) of the CAA stipulates that no large air pollutant-emitting plant can be built unless it is fitted with the best available control technology. Furthermore, when EPA finds that a state is not complying with a CAA requirement governing the construction of a pollutant source, it has the authority to issue an order prohibiting construction, impose an administrative penalty, or file a civil action for injunctive relief under § 113(a)(5) of the CAA. § 167 of the CAA authorizes EPA to take any necessary action, including issuing an order or pursuing injunctive relief, to prevent the construction of a significant pollutant-emitting plant that does not comply with the CAA’s pollutant criteria. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Proudly powered by WordPress