Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Citizens Against Refinery's Effects, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

643 F.2d 183 (1981)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Citizens Against Refinery’s Effects, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

643 F.2d 183 (1981)

Facts

The federal Clean Air Act established national standards for major types of air pollutants. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) was tasked with administering the act over the states. Under the statute, the EPA divided each state into Air Quality Control Regions and monitored the level of pollutants in each region. If a particular region within a state had a pollutant level that exceeded the maximum-allowed standard, no development that would add more of that particular pollutant to the region was allowed to proceed until the level was reduced. The EPA worked with noncompliant states to create State Implementation Plans (SIPs), through which the state could reduce pollution levels to the allowable level. States were allowed to include offset programs in their SIPs. These offset programs allowed for the creation of new sources of pollutants, provided that the state found and made a cutback in an existing source of the pollutant that would be greater than the potential addition of the pollutant from the new proposed source. Virginia proposed a SIP that included an offset program for a region that was not in compliance with one pollutant. Under the offset program, the state would stop using a more-polluting type of asphalt in highway projects and switch to a less-polluting type in order to offset the pollution that would be generated by a new petroleum refinery in the region. The EPA approved the offset program and the SIP. A citizens-action group, Citizens Against the Refinery’s Effects Inc. (CARE) (plaintiff) sued the EPA to stop approval of the SIP, alleging that the EPA’s approval of the SIP was arbitrary and capricious. The EPA issued a final ruling approving the SIP, and CARE appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership