From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
548 F.2d 998 (1976)
If a pesticide posed a danger to human health or the environment, its registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) could be canceled. The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) had the authority to suspend a pesticide’s FIFRA registration until a final cancelation determination was made if the pesticide posed an “imminent hazard.” The administrator of the EPA ordered the suspension of the pesticides heptachlor and chlordane, but the order allowed some limited uses and existing stocks to be sold. Before the order was issued, a cancelation hearing was held, and the administrative-law judge recommended against the suspension, holding that the evidence did not conclusively show that the pesticides were carcinogenic in laboratory animals. The administrator issued the order suspending the pesticides regardless, relying on evidence that showed cellular changes in lab animals and extrapolated those findings to humans. In addition, the administrator found that alternate methods of protecting the crops existed so that suspension of these pesticides would not cause unreasonable economic harm. The administrator did not make any findings as to the amount of the existing stock or what would be required to collect and return that stock rather than allowing it to be sold. The secretary of agriculture and the Velsicol Chemical Corporation (plaintiffs) filed a petition for review asking that the EPA’s order be set aside on the grounds that the evidence did not support a finding that the pesticides posed an imminent hazard to human health. The Environmental Defense Fund (plaintiff) also filed a petition challenging the EPA’s order, in which it opposed the continued sale of existing stock and the continued limited uses. The court reviewed these challenges to the administrator’s order of suspension.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Leventhal, J.)
What to do next…
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
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.