—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
The United States Supreme Court has the last say when it comes to disputes involving interpretation of our nation’s environmental laws. Below are brief descriptions of the holdings in some of the most seminal environmental cases.
Sierra Club v. Rogers Clark Ballard Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)
In a case involving a development near Sequoia National Park, the Supreme Court held that while the Sierra Club itself lacked standing, it could sue on behalf of any member possessing an interest — including hiking, fishing, or camping — in the affected natural resources region.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1972)
The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs, a consortium of environmental advocacy organizations, lacked standing under the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act because the endangerment at issue was merely a threat, and thus too speculative.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Following the EPA’s adoption of a new and more polluter-friendly definition of “stationary source” of air pollution, the NRDC challenged it in federal court. Setting forth a two-part test for evaluating the propriety of a federal agency’s decision, the Court upheld the EPA’s action on the grounds that (1) the Clean Air Act did not evidence Congressional intent to the contrary and (2) it was reasonable or permissible.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
In connection with a beachfront property owner’s challenge to South Carolina’s increased regulations on the uses of coastal land, the Supreme Court established the “total takings” test, and held that a governmental regulatory taking occurs only where a land owner is deprived of all economically viable uses of the property.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
After the EPA determined that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, twelve states, various cities and environmental organizations filed suit forcing it do so; the Supreme Court ultimately held that the EPA did, in fact, possess the necessary power under the Clean Air Act. Significantly, the Court also concluded that the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles if it determines that they ”may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare.”
National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 64 (2007)
In response to the EPA’s transfer of authority to Arizona under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System pursuant to certain criteria under the Clean Water Act, an environmental organization challenged that action, claiming that it might put into jeopardy certain species, thereby violating the Endangered Species Act. The Supreme Court rejected that challenge, concluding that, under the circumstances, the Endangered Species Act was inapplicable.
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaskan Conservation Council, 07-984 (2009)
In a case brought by various environmental groups challenging the dumping of 4.5 million tons of tailings — leftover waste from the mining process — into a lake in a national forest, the Supreme Court concluded that the United States Army Corps of Engineers was authorized to issue a permit enabling the mining company to do so.
