Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act

By R. Shep Melnick | Go to book overview
Save to active project

CHAPTER ONE
Law and Regulation: The Dual Transformation

We stand on the threshold of a new era in the history of the long and fruitful
collaboration of administrative agencies and reviewing courts.

-- Chief Judge David Bazelon in
Environmental Defense Fund v. Ruckelshaus, 1971

Recent history would indicate that the prime mover behind implementation of the Clean Air Act has not been Congress or EPA, but the courts--specifically this court. -- Judge Malcolm Wilkey in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 1976

LITTLE MORE than a decade ago a book on the influence of federal court decisions on national air pollution control policy would have been a short one indeed. Before 1970 the norm of judicial deference to agency expertise guided the courts in their review of the relatively minor regulatory decisions made by federal administrators. State courts handled the few public nuisance suits brought by private citizens against individual polluters. Yet by 1980 the federal courts had not only heard hundreds of cases dealing with air pollution, but had issued scores of rulings profoundly affecting national environmental policies.

The federal courts have done far more than adjudicate disputes between private parties or prevent administrators from exceeding their statutory authority. They have announced sweeping rulings on policy issues left unresolved by existing legislation, often expanding the scope of government programs in the process. Consider, for example, the following decisions issued under the Clean Air Act of 1970.1

--In Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, the district court for the District of Columbia instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to design a program that would prevent the "significant deterioration" of air quality in areas already meeting statutory air quality standards.2 The court based its decision on the act's preface, which announced Congress's

____________________
1
84 Stat. 1676. For an extensive review of the Clean Air Act decisions, see William H. Rodgers Jr. , Handbook on Environmental Law ( West, 1977).
2
Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D.D.C. 1972), upheld by an equally divided Supreme Court, sub nom. Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S.541 ( 1973).

-1-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 404

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?