The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

Congressional research reportFeb 27, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

The Supreme Court Accepts Five

Environmental Cases During Its

2008-2009 Term

-name redactedLegislative Attorney

February 27, 2009

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40441

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

Summary

In the Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term, which likely will conclude in late June, 2009, the Court

has accepted for argument five environmental cases—an unusually large number out of the

roughly 85 cases accepted for argument. This report reviews the cases, decided and undecided,

and then briefly comments.

The one case of the five that is already decided is Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

holding that the national security interest in the Navy’s being able to conduct exercises using

“mid-frequency active sonar” clearly outweighs the danger to whales from use of such sonar. In

so deciding, the Court also invalidated the Ninth Circuit’s lax standard for the issuance of

preliminary injunctions.

The four cases remaining to be decided are, first, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, raising the

question whether a court’s awarding nationwide relief from the application of a rule is proper in

the context of a site-specific challenge to the rule. Second, the case of Entergy Corp. v.

Environmental Protection Agency addresses the Clean Water Act’s demand that EPA require the

“best technology available” to minimize fish mortality from cooling water intake structures; the

issue is whether that demand allows EPA to do cost-benefit analysis in deciding what technology

to approve. Third, the case of Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska Conservation Group poses the issue

whether a discharge prohibited by a Clean Water Act new source performance standard can still

be allowed pursuant to a “fill” permit under the act. And fourth, the case of Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States takes on two questions at the heart of the Superfund

Act’s liability scheme: when is there a reasonable basis for apportioning liability for hazardoussubstance cleanup costs among responsible parties, in lieu of the joint and several liability that

would otherwise apply, and when is a manufacturer liable for having arranged for the disposal of

a hazardous substance even though disposal was not the primary purpose of the arrangement.

Each of these cases has important implications for the particular program involved, and a few

reach well beyond.

Industry views these five cases with optimism; the environmental community with apprehension.

A principal reason is that in all five cases, the environmental side won in the decision below.

Assuming the conventional wisdom that the Supreme Court does not take cases merely to affirm

the decision below, the environmental sweep in the lower appellate courts suggests decisions

going the other way in the Supreme Court. The one decision so far, in Winter v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, follows that prediction.

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

Contents

The Decided Case .......................................................................................................................1

Appropriateness of Preliminary Injunction Limiting Military Exercises: Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council ...................................................................................1

The Cases Remaining to Be Decided...........................................................................................2

Propriety of Challenge to Nationwide Application of Rule Based on Site-specific

Application of Rule: Summers v. Earth Island Institute.......................................................2

Whether Cost-benefit Analysis May Be Used to Determine “Best Technology

Available” Under the Clean Water Act: Entergy Corp. v. Environmental Protection

Agency...............................................................................................................................3

Conflicting Regulatory Coverage Under the Clean Water Act: Coeur Alaska, Inc. v.

Alaska Conservation Group ...............................................................................................4

Liability Apportionment and “Arranger” Liability Under the Superfund Act:

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States.........................................5

Concluding Thoughts ..................................................................................................................7

Contacts

Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................8

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

n the Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term, which likely will conclude in late June, 2009, the

Court has accepted for argument five environmental cases—an unusually large number out of

the roughly 85 cases accepted for argument. The reason for this interest in environmental

cases at this particular time is speculative; the Court generally does not explain why it accepts

cases. This report reviews the cases, decided and undecided, and then briefly comments.

At this writing, one of the five cases has been decided.

The Decided Case

Appropriateness of Preliminary Injunction Limiting Military

Exercises: Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Facts and litigation history: The Navy scheduled 14 training exercises through January 2009 off

the coast of southern California. These exercises involve the use of “mid-frequency active sonar”

to detect enemy submarines. Environmentalists claim that the high decibel levels used harms

whales, causing beach strandings. In February 2007, however, the Navy issued an environmental

assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), concluding that the use of midfrequency active sonar during the exercises would cause minimal harm to marine mammals.

Petitioners, mostly environmental groups, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the

exercises, on the ground that they violated NEPA, plus other environmental laws not material to

the Supreme Court decision. The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring conduct

of the exercises. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court modified the preliminary

injunction to allow the Navy to use the sonar if it used mitigation measures. On the Navy’s

second appeal, challenging two of the mitigation measures, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the

modified injunction,1 noting that plaintiffs (petitioners in the Supreme Court) had carried their

burden of showing a “possibility” of irreparable injury and that the balance of hardships weighed

in favor of plaintiffs.

Holding/rationale of Supreme Court: The Supreme Court ruled November 12, 20082 (by which

time 13 of the 14 scheduled exercises had been conducted). The majority opinion, by the five

justices generally identified as conservative, 3 held that as an initial matter the Ninth Circuit’s

“possibility” test for issuance of a preliminary injunction is too lenient; plaintiffs must show that

irreparable injury is “likely” in the absence of an injunction. However, the Court continued, even

if plaintiffs had shown irreparable injury (and, too, likelihood of success on the merits), it is

“plainly outweighed” by the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors. That

factor alone requires denial of the requested injunctive relief. For the plaintiffs, the most serious

possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of marine mammals. In light of the

foregoing, the Court reversed the decision below and vacated the preliminary injunction.

518 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2008).

129 S. Ct. 365 (2008). For more extended discussion of the context of the case and the Supreme Court’s decision, see

CRS Report RL34403, Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s Mid-frequency Active Sonar

Training, by (name redacted).

The opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, and joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

Parenthetically, said the Court, the same balancing factor requiring vacatur of the preliminary

injunction here would also bear on a challenge to any future permanent injunction.

The Court did not address the merits of the lawsuit—that is, whether the Navy exercises violated

NEPA or the other federal environmental laws claimed to be violated.

Comments: This case was accepted by the Supreme Court in an unusual posture: as a challenge

to a preliminary injunction, rather than to the merits of petitioners’ statutory claims. The Court

made clear, however, that its perception of an overriding national security interest in the

challenged training exercises should lead the district court to reject a final injunction as well, in

the event the military is found to have violated an environmental statute. Note, too, that the

United States had sought the judicial rejection of the Ninth Circuit’s “mere possibility” test for

issuance of injunctions before, 4 succeeding this time.

The Ninth Circuit is widely regarded as an environmentally friendly circuit, and the Supreme

Court, in reversing it here, was doing what it has done many times before. Three of the four

undecided environmental cases this term are also from the Ninth Circuit.

The Cases Remaining to Be Decided

Propriety of Challenge to Nationwide Application of Rule

Based on Site-specific Application of Rule:

Summers v. Earth Island Institute

Facts and litigation history: On June 4, 2003, acting under the Forest Service Decision-making

and Appeals Reform Act (ARA), the Forest Service promulgated regulations codified at 36 CFR

§§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a). These regulations precluded notice, opportunity for comment, and

administrative appeals for projects and activities implementing forest plans where those plans and

activities are covered by categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). The following day, the Forest Service designated salvage timber sales of 250 acres or

less as categorical exclusions. Later in 2003, the Forest Service approved the timber sale of 238

acres of post-fire forest, stating that the project was not subject to appeal because of the

regulations. In a challenge to the 2003 regulations as applied to this timber sale, the district court

invalidated the regulations and issued a nationwide injunction against their application.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit in Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687 (9th Cir. 2007),

held first that plaintiffs had Article III standing because there is injury in fact:5 here, deprivation

of procedural rights and the possibility of reduced recreational enjoyment of the national forests.

As a further preliminary matter, the court found the claims against the appeal prohibition ripe

because they had been applied to the timber sale in question to block plaintiff Earth Island

Institute’s administrative appeal. On the merits, the Ninth Circuit found that 36 C.F.R. §§

See the United States’ petition for certiorari in United States Forest Service v. Earth Island Institute (No. 06-797),

cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1278 (2007). The decision below is at 442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2007).

By limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” and “controversies,” Article III of the Constitution has long

been construed to require that only those persons suffering “injury in fact” have standing to sue in such courts.

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

215.12(f) and 215.4(a) conflict with the plain language of the ARA, affirming the district court. It

also affirmed the nationwide scope of the district court’s injunction against the regulations’

enforcement.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 18, 2008.6 Paraphrasing the petition for

certiorari, the questions presented are: (1) whether the Forest Service’s promulgation of 36 C.F.R.

§ 215.4(a) and § 215.12(f), as distinct from the particular site-specific project to which those

regulations were applied in this case, was a proper subject of judicial review; (2) whether

respondent environmental groups established standing; (3) whether respondents’ challenge to 36

C.F.R. § 215.4(a) and § 215.12(f) remains ripe after the timber sale to which the regulations had

been applied was withdrawn, and respondents’ challenges to that sale had been voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to settlement between the parties; and (4) whether the Ninth

Circuit erred in affirming the nationwide injunction issued by the district court. The case was

argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2008, the same day as Winter, supra, but has not

yet been decided.

Comments: Environmental groups have long used site-specific challenges to achieve programwide reform. Thus, the stakes in this decision are potentially large. A defeat for such groups—that

is, a holding that site-specific application of a rule does not give a plaintiff the right to a

nationwide remedy—could greatly increase the burden on public interest groups seeking to

invalidate a government program as contrary to statute by requiring multiple lawsuits where one

currently might suffice. That the Court, or at least its conservative justices, might so rule is

suggested by the generally restrictive view of the role of the courts held by such justices.

Whether Cost-benefit Analysis May Be Used to Determine “Best

Technology Available” Under the Clean Water Act: Entergy Corp. v.

Environmental Protection Agency

Facts and litigation history: “Power plants and other industrial operations withdraw billions of

gallons of water from the nation’s waterways each day to cool their facilities. The flow of water

into these plants traps ... large aquatic organisms against grills or screens, which cover the intake

structures, and draws ... small aquatic organisms into the cooling mechanism ... [resulting in] the

kill[ing] or injur[ing] of billions of aquatic organisms every year.”7 Addressing this problem,

Clean Water Act (CWA) section 316(b)8 demands that rules under the act require that “the

location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best

technology available [BTA] for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” In 2004, EPA issued

the rule at issue here, governing cooling water intake structures at large, existing power plants.9

The rule permitted EPA to conduct cost-benefit analysis in determining BTA.

In Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States, 475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit invalidated

the use of cost-benefit analysis under section 316(b). The language of that provision, it noted,

76 U.S.L.W. 3391 (No. 07-463).

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States, 475 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir. 2007).

33 U.S.C. § 1326(b).

The rule at issue here is often referred to as the “Phase II” cooling water intake rule. The Phase I cooling water intake

rule, issued in 2001, governs intake at new power plants. The Phase III rule, issued in 2006, applies at facilities other

than power plants.

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

“plainly indicates that facilities must adopt the best technology available and that cost-benefit

analysis cannot be justified ...”10 When Congress has intended that an agency do cost-benefit

analysis, said the court, it has said so on the face of the statute, which it did not do in section

316(b). By contrast, EPA may consider cost in two other ways: first, to determine what

technology can reasonably be borne by the industry, and second, to do cost effectiveness analysis

(the court reasoning that BTA selection based in part on cost effectiveness, while taking cost into

account, remains technology rather than cost driven).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 14, 2008.11 As phrased in the petition for

certiorari, the question presented is whether CWA section 316(b) authorizes EPA to compare costs

with benefits in determining the “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental

impact” at cooling water intake structures. The case was argued December 2, 2008.

Comments: In the 1970s, when almost all the federal environmental laws were enacted, there

was much resistance to cost-benefit analysis. In part, the opposition stemmed from a belief that

one simply cannot put a dollar value on all the things that environmental laws protect and that

when agencies do use such dollar values, they are often low. There has been a shift of late,

however, to greater acceptance of cost-benefit analysis. This case will test whether the justices on

the Supreme Court generally viewed as conservative, often more sympathetic to business

concerns such as cost, will continue that shift. Industry presumably would welcome a decision

that could be used to legitimize cost-benefit analysis elsewhere in the CWA where it is not

expressly authorized, and in federal pollution control statutes generally.

This case has also put a spotlight on Justice Breyer, who before becoming a judge on the First

Circuit criticized government regulation for not often enough considering costs, as through costbenefit analysis. 12 This may explain the effort in Riverkeeper’s brief to the Court to argue, as did

the Second Circuit, that there are avenues for consideration of costs in CWA section 316(b) other

than a cost-benefit analysis.

Conflicting Regulatory Coverage Under the Clean Water Act:

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska Conservation Group

Facts and litigation history: Coeur Alaska proposes to revive a long-defunct gold mine in

Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. The company proposes to dispose of the wastewater produced

by the mine—210,000 gallons daily, including 1,440 tons of tailings—by piping it to a nearby 23acre lake in the national forest. The discharge would kill all the fish and nearly all the other

aquatic life in the lake. Because the discharge ultimately would raise the lake bottom by 50 feet

(necessitating a dam), the Corps of Engineers reasoned that it was covered by the permit program

under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 40413 for discharges of “fill material” into U.S. waters. The

Corps issued the section 404 permit in 2005.

475 F.3d at 98-99 (emphasis in original).

76 U.S.L.W. 3554 (No. 07-588).

See, e.g., Stephen Breyer, Analyzing Regulatory Failure: Mismatches, Less Restrictive Alternatives, and Reform, 92

Harv. L. Rev. 549, 570 (1979) (“Ideally, one might expect regulators to set standards through the use of cost-benefit

principles.”).

33 U.S.C. § 1344.

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

In Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 486 F.3d 638 (9th

Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit addressed the fact that two different CWA regulations, dictating

different results, seemed to apply to Coeur Alaska’s proposed discharge. First, the Corps and EPA

define “fill material” as material placed in waters of the United States that changes the bottom

elevation of such waters.14 No one disputes that the discharge from Coeur’s gold mine would do

this and, as noted, the “404 permit” has been issued. Second, however, EPA has a new source

performance standard promulgated under CWA section 30615 that specifically prohibits

discharges from Coeur Alaska’s type of ore processing (“a froth flotation mill”) into waters of the

United States.16 This prohibition is required under the CWA to be incorporated into the mill’s

section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or “NPDES”) permit.17

The court concluded that the CWA’s plain language requires that the Section 306 performance

standard apply, through an NPDES permit. Section 404, said the court, contains no implied

exemption from the performance standards whenever a proposed discharge meets the definition

of “fill material.” Moreover, the court said, EPA’s and the Corps’ statements when the regulatory

definition of “fill material” was adopted show that they did not intend waste products subject to

performance standards to be regulated as fill material. Thus, in the court’s view, the Corps should

not have issued a 404 permit here and the district court’s contrary ruling must be reversed.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 27, 2008.18 Paraphrasing the petition for certiorari,

the question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit erred in reallocating the permitting authority

of the Corps of Engineers under CWA section 404, to EPA under CWA section 402. The case was

argued Jan. 12, 2009.

Comments: The grant of certiorari was unexpected in this case because there was no circuit split

and the United States did not seek review. The consequences of a reversal could be significant if

the Court gives the Corps wide latitude to remove discharges from EPA’s NPDES program by

redefining “fill material.”

Liability Apportionment and “Arranger” Liability Under the

Superfund Act: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co.

v. United States

Facts and litigation history: U.S. EPA and the State of California spent a considerable sum to

clean up the toxic contamination at an agricultural chemical storage and distribution facility. EPA

and the state then sued to recover their cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; popularly “Superfund Act”), which

attaches liability for such government cleanup costs to past and present owners and operators of a

contaminated site, those who transported the hazardous substance to the site, and those who

33 C.F.R. § 323.3(e)(1)(i).

33 U.S.C. § 1316.

40 C.F.R. § 440.104(b)(1). New source performance standards are incorporated into permits under CWA section 402,

33 U.S.C. § 1342—required for point sources of discharges into waters of the United States. These permits are known

as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (or “NPDES”) permits.

33 U.S.C. § 1342.

76 U.S.L.W. 3683 (No. 07-984).

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substance at the site (“arranger liability”). 19 In light of

this liability scheme, EPA and the state sued (a) the company that operated the facility, which

later became defunct, (b) two railroads (including Burlington Northern), which owned part of the

site when the contamination occurred, and (c) Shell Oil Co., which supplied and delivered some

of the chemicals to the facility.

The district court found the railroads liable as past and present owners of the site and Shell liable

as an “arranger.” It then multiplied a variety of percentages (e.g., the percentage of the overall site

owned by the railroads) to find the railroads liable for 9% of total cleanup costs, and Shell liable

for 6% of total cleanup costs.

In United States v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., 520 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2008),

the Ninth Circuit addressed two questions. First, are the railroads and Shell liable for all the

cleanup costs or, as the district court held, only some of them? The court held that as a purely

legal matter, the harm at issue here is capable of apportionment—for example, some of the

contamination occurred before the railroads’ parcel became part of the facility, and only some of

the toxic substances were stored on that parcel. But, the court said, neither the railroads nor Shell

has provided any reasonable basis for an apportionment here—for example, leakage or disposal

evidence cannot suffice to provide such a basis because relative toxicity and migratory potential

are also relevant. The second question answered by the court was whether Shell was liable as an

“arranger.” That term, said the court, is not limited to “direct” arranger liability, where the central

purpose of the transaction is to dispose of the hazardous substance. In addition, CERCLA case

law includes “broader“ arranger liability, where the transaction contemplates disposal as a part of,

but not the focus of, the transaction. Here, Shell arranged a transaction in which there necessarily

would be leakage or some other form of disposal, and that is sufficient for arranger liability.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 1, 2008.20 As phrased in Burlington Northern’s

petition for certiorari, the question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit erred by reversing the

district court's apportionment of responsibility under CERCLA and by adopting a standard of

review that departs from common law principles and conflicts with decisions of other circuits. As

phrased in Shell Oil’s petition for certiorari, the questions presented are (1) whether liability for

"arranging" for disposal of hazardous substances under CERCLA may be imposed upon a

manufacturer who merely sells and ships, by common carrier, a commercially useful product,

transferring ownership and control to a purchaser who then causes contamination involving that

product, and (2) whether joint and several liability may be imposed upon several potentially

responsible parties under CERCLA even when there is an objectively reasonable basis for

divisibility that would suffice at common law. The case was argued on February 24, 2009.

Comments: This case raises fundamental Superfund Act issues that the Court has repeatedly

denied certiorari on in the past. Some observers opine that this is the most important Superfund

case ever to reach the Court, raising issues as to which the government has enjoyed favorable

precedent until now.

The heart of the Superfund statute is its expansive liability scheme, designed by Congress to

maximize the likelihood that solvent responsible parties would be found at a site to reimburse the

government for its cleanup costs. One element of that expansive liability, legislative history

42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a)(1)-(4). Transporters are liable only if they selected the site. Id. at § 9607(a)(4).

77 U.S.L.W. 3195 (No. 07-1601).

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

shows, is that parties made liable under the act are jointly and severally liable (each is potentially

liable for the entire cleanup) unless there is some reasonable basis for apportioning liability.

Burlington Northern, in raising the issue of what constitutes a reasonable basis, may critically

affect how often the government will be able to recover its costs (through court awards of

damages or negotiated settlements). Thus, if the Supreme Court substitutes a lax standard for

finding a reasonable basis in place of the Ninth Circuit’s demanding one, the federal treasury

would very likely have to absorb a portion of total cleanup costs more often than under current

precedent. In the same way, if the Court adopts a tighter standard for “arranger” liability than the

Ninth Circuit, there could be fewer parties in the pool of potential defendants, and, once again, a

greater likelihood that the treasury would have to foot some of the cleanup bill. Industry, of

course, is concerned as to what the liability of a manufacturer is in selling a product—that is, in

instances when it is not, in an obvious sense, “arrang[ing] for disposal.”

Concluding Thoughts

Though the Navy sonar case is the only one of the five cases accepted by the Supreme Court

likely to generate headlines in the popular press, all of these cases are important for their

individual programs, and in some cases for standing and administrative law beyond. They are also

likely to be revealing of the environmental direction to be taken by the still-emerging Roberts

Court, which has split closely on some major environmental cases.21

Industry views these five cases with optimism; the environmental community with apprehension.

For one thing, the environmental side won in the decision below in all five cases. Assuming the

conventional wisdom that the Supreme Court does not take cases merely to affirm the decision

below, the environmental sweep in the appellate courts suggests decisions going the other way in

the Supreme Court (the one decision so far, in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

follows that prediction). Reinforcing this possibility is the fact that four of the five cases are from

the Ninth Circuit—as mentioned, a circuit with a high reversal rate in the Supreme Court. As for

the principal NEPA case, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, it has been noted that the Supreme

Court has voted against the environmental position in each of its 15 NEPA decisions.22 Finally, as

an overall matter, today’s Supreme Court, with a few notable exceptions, has been less tolerant of

regulation and more sympathetic to business concerns than the Court of the 1970s and early

1980s, the first decade-and-a-half of federal environmental legislation. 23

As for the large number of environmental cases this term, there is always the chance that it is due

purely to the random vagaries of the Court’s certiorari-granting process (the Court’s previous

term had no environmental cases24). Another view is that the conservative justices, realizing the

See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (5-4), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (4-14).

See Marcia Coyle, How green is the court?, NAT’L L.J. (Oct. 20, 2008), at 1, 17.

“Notable exceptions” include Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.

167 (2000), and Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

The text statement raises the ancient definitional question as to what is an “environmental” case. Two cases decided

by the Supreme Court during its previous (2007-2008) term arose in an environmental context, but the legal issues

raised were more non-environmental. One case is Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008), which

stemmed from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Exxon Shipping held that maritime common law on punitive

damages is not preempted by the Clean Water Act’s penalties for water pollution, and at least in the circumstances of

this case, maritime law punitive damages should not exceed compensatory damages. The other case is New Jersey v.

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008-2009 Term

possibility of appointments to the Court by President Obama, want to resolve as many

environmental issues as possible before their numbers are diminished. Finally, it has been

suggested that the most eminent Supreme Court practitioners of the day are taking a greater

interest in environmental cases, and that their skills and their names on the petitions for certiorari

increase the likelihood that the Court will accept such cases.25

Finally, it is worth noting that the Court continues to reject repeated petitions for certiorari in the

most difficult cases, including in the current term. These include preeminently the question of

whether certain intrastate applications of the Endangered Species Act comport with the

Commerce Clause of the Constitution (petitions rejected at least four times), and efforts to clarify

the Court’s fractured opinions as to the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act in Rapanos v.

United States26 (petitions rejected five times). As with the cases granted certiorari above, the

reasons for the Court’s nonacceptance of cases are speculative, beyond pointing out that the

overwhelming majority of petitions for certiorari are turned down. As to Rapanos, however, the

reason for nonacceptance (even when, this term, the United States itself was the petitioner) is

very likely that the justices on the Court today are the same as in 2006 when Rapanos was

decided. In that year, no single rationale commanded the support of a majority of the justices,

leaving the lower courts in confusion as to the rule of law to be extracted from the decision. That

would also likely be the result if the Court were to accept a post-Rapanos case now.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(...continued)

Delaware, 128 S. Ct. 1410 (2008), which arose from Delaware’s refusal to grant British Petroleum permission to

construct a liquefied natural gas unloading terminal extending from New Jersey’s shore 2,000 feet into Delaware

territory. The Court held that the governing interstate compact did not grant New Jersey exclusive jurisdiction over all

improvements extending outward of its low-water mark, hence Delaware could block the project.

Remarks of Richard Lazarus, Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School, at the Environmental Law Institute’s

Supreme Court Environmental Preview, Oct. 1, 2008, held at Harvard Law School. (Webcast link available from

author). Eminent Supreme Court practitioners having their names on the petitions for certiorari in the five cases

discussed here, or on amicus briefs in support, include Ted Olsen in Coeur Alaska, Kathleen Sullivan in Shell Oil Co. v.

United States (consolidated with Burlington Northern), and Maureen Mahoney in Burlington Northern.

547 U.S. 715 (2006).

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.