Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
912 F.2d 1525 (1990)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Section 115 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) was intended to address the problem of international air pollution. In 1981, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noted that sources within the United States were contributing to acid rain in Canada, endangering Canadian health and welfare. The administrator also found that Canadian legislation protected Americans to the same extent that Canadians were protected under § 115 of the CAA. Thereafter, the EPA did not take action under § 115 to identify states that were sources of acid rain. In 1990, the Canadian province of Ontario, other states, and environmental groups (collectively, the province) (plaintiffs) requested the EPA to issue rules that would set in motion international pollution-abatement procedures under § 115. The EPA denied the province’s request. The province petitioned the court to review the EPA’s decision, arguing that the EPA had a duty to make findings under § 115 even if the EPA could not yet identify specific sources of acid rain. The EPA countered that the § 115 findings had to be made in a unitary proceeding and the EPA did not have to find endangerment to foreign public health from acid rain if specific sources of acid rain in the United States could not be identified.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buckley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
