Content deleted Content added
Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) removed link from lead citation per WP:SCOTUS/SG; added library of congress source for scan of U.S. Reports; citation tweaks |
→top: add "use mdy dates" template |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA
Line 12 ⟶ 13:
|Subsequent=
|Holding=
|Majority=Ginsburg
|JoinMajority=Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer
Line 20:
}}
'''''Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA''''', 540 U.S. 461 (2004), is a
==Background==
The [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] requires state agencies to determine optimal methods of preventing air quality degradation in areas that meet national clean air standards.<ref>{{USCSub|42|7470|1}}.</ref> The Act regulates air quality and establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards in every state to prevent public health issues.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act|title=Summary of the Clean Air Act|last=EPA, OA, OP, ORPM, RMD|first=US|website=www.epa.gov|date=22 February 2013 |language=en|access-date=2017-02-15}}</ref> The Act prohibits construction of major air polluting facilities that are not equipped with "the best available control technology" (BACT).<ref>{{USCSub|42|7475|a|4}}.</ref>
In 1998, [[Teck Resources|Teck Cominco Alaska]], requested a permit to build an additional generator and to modify an existing generator at its mines in order to expand zinc extraction.
The ADEC issued a second report reinforcing the original findings
The ADEC appealed the EPA's orders to the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] and argued that the EPA did not have the right to interfere with the state agency's decision. The Ninth Circuit sided with EPA, and ADEC appealed.
Under the Clean Air Act, can EPA block construction of a new major pollutant emitting facility permitted by a state environmental regulator, when EPA finds the state environmental regulator's determination unreasonable? What standard of review applies to such actions?▼
==
▲Under the Clean Air Act, can the EPA block construction of a new major pollutant emitting facility permitted by a state environmental regulator
The Court held that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to bar the construction of the polluting facility in Alaska. EPA correctly interpreted the Clean Air Act to give EPA authority to review state authorities' BACT determinations.<ref>The court found such authority in {{USCSub|42|7413|a|5}} and {{USC|42|7477|notitle=1}}.</ref>▼
==Majority opinion==
Since the Act does not specify a standard for judicial review, the court applied "the familiar default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act,<ref>{{USCSub|5|706|2|a}}.</ref>" of whether the EPA's action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The court found that, although EPA's orders were explained with "less than ideal clarity,<ref>{{ussc|name=Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.|link=|volume=419|page=281|pin=286|year=1974}}.</ref>" EPA's comments and orders were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.▼
▲The Supreme Court held in its [[majority opinion]] that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to bar the construction of the polluting facility in Alaska. The EPA correctly interpreted that the Clean Air Act
▲Since the Act does not specify a standard for judicial review, the
Justice Kennedy wrote a dissent for Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Justice Kennedy found that the State of Alaska procedures were in full compliance with the Clean Air Act and accompanying regulations promulgated by EPA. EPA's action to overturn ADEC's decision was based on nothing more than its substantive disagreement with the State's discretionary judgment, exceeded its powers in setting aside Alaska's BACT determination.▼
==Dissenting opinion==
▲Justice Kennedy wrote a
==See also==
Line 51 ⟶ 52:
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA'', {{ussc|540|461|2004|el=no}}
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13159361434104611622
| findlaw =https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/461.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep540/usrep540461/usrep540461.pdf
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-658
}}
{{United States environmental law}}
[[Category:1999 in Alaska]]
|