{
  "id": "RL32569",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32569",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 305597,
      "date": "2004-09-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:09:28.993127",
      "title": "The Supreme Court Revisits the Environment: Seven Cases Decided or Accepted in the 2003-2004 Term",
      "summary": "In the Supreme Court's 2003-2004 term, concluded June, 2004, the Court accepted for review\nseven\nenvironmental cases -- an unusually large number. Five decisions were handed down during the\nterm, and two cases were carried over to the upcoming 2004-2005 term. \n  Of the five decided cases, three involve the Clean Air Act (CAA).  Alaska Dep't of\nEnvironmental Conservation v. EPA  asked whether EPA may issue CAA enforcement orders\nthat\neffectively overrule a permit issued by a state under its EPA-approved air program. The Court said\nyes, though only by a 5-4 margin. In  Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality\nManagement District , the Court held that the CAA preempts a state from compelling local\nvehicle\nfleet operators to buy new vehicles from the state's list of low-emission models. And  Dep't of\nTransportation v. Public Citizen  spoke to whether DOT safety regulations whose\npromulgation\nallowed Mexican trucks greater range in the United States must be preceded by environmental\nanalyses under the CAA and National Environmental Policy Act. Because DOT lacks discretion to\nprevent the truck movement, said the Court, the added emissions from that movement did not have\nto be considered.\n  The other decided cases are, first,  South Florida Water Management District v.\n Miccosukee\nTribe of Indians , holding that a point source of discharges into U.S. navigable waters must\nobtain\na Clean Water Act permit despite the fact that the point source itself did not add the pollutants in the\ndischarged water. Second,  Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance  clarified the\navailability\nof judicial review of federal agency inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows\nreview of agency action \"unlawfully withheld.\" \n  Environmental cases to be heard in the 2004-2005 term are  Cooper Industries, Inc. v.\n Aviall\nServices, Inc. , addressing when contribution actions are available under the Superfund Act,\nand\n Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC , which wrestles with the scope of federal preemption\nof state law\nunder the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\n  It is not apparent why the Court has chosen this moment to enlarge its environmental docket. \nNo unifying theme is apparent in the accepted cases, and why some of them piqued the Court's\ninterest is perplexing. There are some commonalities, however. All seven cases raise principally\nstatutory, rather than constitutional, issues. The results, in the cases decided so far, lean against the\n\"environmental\" side, though not exclusively so. And three of the seven cases turn on the nature of\nthe federal-state relationship, a favorite theme of the current Court.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32569",
          "sha1": "df1b84346a00f496832b7816a9e4fb70a4a88226",
          "filename": "files/20040907_RL32569_df1b84346a00f496832b7816a9e4fb70a4a88226.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32569",
          "sha1": "c200c6dab7ba44506edcd58a2fa32c1e7ca31deb",
          "filename": "files/20040907_RL32569_c200c6dab7ba44506edcd58a2fa32c1e7ca31deb.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}