Environmental Defense Fund v. Thomas
case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
(870 F.2d 892 (2d Cir. 1989)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellants,
environmental groups and six states, challenged an order of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
which held that the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq., did
not confer jurisdiction on the district court to order appellee, the
Environmental Protection Agency and its administrator, to revise
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Other companies in the energy
industry joined as appellees.
FACTS: The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq. (1982 & Supp. 1986) (Act), set up a bifurcated system for judicial review of appellee Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) rules. Section 304 of the Act provided that claims to compel appellee administrator to perform non-discretionary duties could be brought in district courts; section 307 of the Act provided that petitions for review of appellee administrator's discretionary actions had to be brought in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. When appellants, environmental groups and six states, brought an action in a district court to compel appellee administrator to revise National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the district court held that this action was discretionary and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court reversed. Review of the rules was discretionary and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the D.C. Circuit. However, the court noted that in similar cases, district courts had the power to order appellee administrator to perform purely ministerial acts. The court ordered appellee administrator to make a formal decision about whether it would revise the NAAQS.
FACTS: The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq. (1982 & Supp. 1986) (Act), set up a bifurcated system for judicial review of appellee Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) rules. Section 304 of the Act provided that claims to compel appellee administrator to perform non-discretionary duties could be brought in district courts; section 307 of the Act provided that petitions for review of appellee administrator's discretionary actions had to be brought in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. When appellants, environmental groups and six states, brought an action in a district court to compel appellee administrator to revise National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the district court held that this action was discretionary and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court reversed. Review of the rules was discretionary and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the D.C. Circuit. However, the court noted that in similar cases, district courts had the power to order appellee administrator to perform purely ministerial acts. The court ordered appellee administrator to make a formal decision about whether it would revise the NAAQS.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the
dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that
under the Clean Air Act (Act), the district court had jurisdiction to
compel appellee administrator to take formal action. The Act gave the
D.C. Circuit the exclusive jurisdiction to evaluate the content of
any rules thus made.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment