# Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 12, 2000 · 528 U.S. 167

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433889

## Case

- **Full name:** FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., Et Al. v. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 12, 2000
- **Citations:** 528 U.S. 167; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 37; 163 A.L.R. Fed. 749; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 375; 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 142; 30 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20246; 49 ERC (BNA) 1769; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 289; 120 S. Ct. 693; 145 L. Ed. 2d 610; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 501
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 6,236 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433889

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant’s substantial compliance with its environmental pollutant discharge permit and the closure of its facility did not moot plaintiff citizens’ enforcement action brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act. “The facility closure, like [the defendant’s] earlier …
- holding that claims by environmental groups for alleged violations by the holder of a pollutant discharge permit were not mooted where defendant had previously achieved substantial compliance with its permit requirements and defendant closed the offending facility following pl…

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
Difficult and fundamental questions are raised when we ask whether exactions of public fines by private litigants, and the delegation of Executive power which might be inferable from the authorization, are permissible in view of the responsibilities committed to the Executive by Article II of the Constitution of the United States. The questions presented in the petition for certiorari did not identify these issues with particularity; and neither the Court of Appeals in deciding the case nor the parties in their briefing before this Court devoted specific attention to the subject. In my view these matters are best reserved for a later case. With this observation, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433889. Public record. Not legal advice.