Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train

430 U.S. 112, 97 S. Ct. 965, 51 L. Ed. 2d 204 (1977)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train

United States Supreme Court

430 U.S. 112, 97 S. Ct. 965, 51 L. Ed. 2d 204 (1977)

Facts

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) authorized steps to achieve the goal of eliminating discharge into the nation’s waters by 1985. Section 304 of the FWPCA, titled the information and guidelines portion of the FWPCA, directed the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (administrator) (defendant) to develop and publish technical data to provide guidance in carrying out other sections of the FWPCA. Section 301(a) made the discharge of any pollutant unlawful unless it complied with certain sections of the FWPCA. Section 301(b) required the achievement of effluent limitations requiring the use of the best practicable control technology by 1977 and required the application of the best available control technology by 1983. Section 402 authorized the administrator to issue permits for individual point sources that complied with § 301 and to review and approve plans of states that wished to implement their own permit programs. Several chemical companies (plaintiffs) argued that § 301 was not an independent source of authority for setting effluent limitations by regulation, but merely a description of the effluent limitations which were to be set for each plant on an individual basis during the permit-issuance process. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that the court of appeals had exclusive jurisdiction to review the regulations. The court of appeals held that the EPA had the authority under § 301 to issue industrywide standards for existing point sources.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, 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 620,000 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 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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 620,000 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
  • 35,800 briefs - keyed to 984 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