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)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
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…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.