# Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment > Supreme Court of the United States · March 4, 1998 · 523 U.S. 83 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795101 ## Case - **Full name:** STEEL CO., AKA CHICAGO STEEL & PICKLING CO. v. CITIZENS FOR a BETTER ENVIRONMENT - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 4, 1998 - **Citations:** 523 U.S. 83; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 369; 98 Daily Journal DAR 2102; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1025; 66 U.S.L.W. 4174; 28 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20434; 46 ERC (BNA) 1097; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1512; 118 S. Ct. 1003; 140 L. Ed. 2d 210; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 1601 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connor - **Judges:** Scalia, Scalía, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Stevens, Sou-Ter, Ginsburg - **Cited by:** 9,957 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/9795101 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction, and explaining that failing to make a determination about jurisdiction first “carries the courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial (10) “Citiz… - holding that environmental group did not have standing in Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act case because, “although a suitor may derive great comfort and joy from the fact that the United States Treasury is not cheated, that a wrongdoer gets his just deserts, … - holding that " [d]ismissal for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper ... when the claim is 'so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions . .. or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a fed… - stating that it is “established jurisprudence that the failure of a cause of action does not automatically produce a failure of jurisdiction” and quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) for the proposition that “ ‘jurisdiction ... is not defe… - stating that standing, which is jurisdictional, "is not defeated ... by the possibility that the ... petitioners [may not recover,]” i.e., that " ‘the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the ... [law is] given one interpretation and w… ## Opinion text Justice O’Connor, with whom Justice Kennedy joins, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion. I agree that our precedent supports the Court’s holding that respondent lacks Article III standing because its injuries cannot be redressed by a judgment that would, in effect, require only the payment of penalties to the United States Treasury. As the Court notes, ante, at 108, had respondent alleged a continuing or imminent violation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U. S. C. § 11046 , the requested injunctive relief may well have redressed the asserted injury. I also agree with the Court’s statement that federal courts should be certain of their jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case. As the Court acknowledges, however, several of our decisions “have diluted the absolute purity of the rule that Article III jurisdiction is always an antecedent question.” Ante, at 101. The opinion of the Court adequately describes why the assumption of jurisdiction was defensible in those cases, see ante, at 98-100, and why it is not in this case, see ante, at 92-93. I write separately to note that, in my view, the Court’s opinion should not be read as cataloging an exhaustive list of circumstances under which federal courts may exercise judgment in “reserving] difficult questions of . . . jurisdiction when the case alternatively *111 could be resolved on the merits in favor of the same party,” Norton v. Mathews, 427 U. S. 524, 532 (1976). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795101. Public record. Not legal advice.