Maine Peoples v. Holtrachem, No. 05-2331. Carter Phillips argued (on behalf of his client) that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), does not really allow for citizen suits, when there is imminent harm to mother nature. Judge Selya calls the argument against constitutional standing to be "specious." The defendants also argued that there would be a "judicial usurpation of regulatory authority because it would permit "private parties to attack EPA risk assessments collaterally, using the very risks EPA deemed acceptable to establish standing and liability, with no deference afforded to EPA's policy judgment." But, Selya rises to the occasion and points out that "it would be no less offensive a usurpation for a court to refuse to undertake a task validly entrusted to it by Congress." On top of that, the Judge Selya points out that the courts are perfectly capable of holding trials on environmental matters.
On the merits, the plaintiffs win. There is a lot of environmental law nerdery in there, which I don't really have time to go through... but if someone wants to write about it (here, or some place out), post a comment.
- Environmental Law in Washington State comments here.
- The Indiana Law Blog Comments here.
- Howard Bashman comments here.
Judge Selya uses many big words, that hopefully have convinced many people that he is smart. However, most people have no idea what he is talking about.
Comments