Maine People’s Alliance v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
471 F.3d 277 (2006)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Mallinckrodt, Inc. (plaintiff) operated a chlor-alkali plant that deposited tons of mercury-contaminated waste into Maine’s Penobscot River. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed an administrative action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for Mallinckrodt to abate the plant’s mercury release and to study the effects of mercury contamination downriver from the plant. Mallinckrodt’s compliance efforts were minimal. Maine People’s Alliance (MPA) (defendant) brought a citizen suit under RCRA against Mallinckrodt, alleging the mercury release “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.” The district court ruled for MPA and directed Mallinckrodt to study and remediate the effects of mercury contamination in the river. Mallinckrodt appealed, arguing that (1) the plain meaning of “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment” required a higher standard of harm than otherwise required by RCRA for “endangerment” alone; (2) a citizen suit is an emergency remedy that should be used only in limited circumstances because it allows courts to second-guess the EPA’s judgments; and (3) federal courts lack competence to address highly technical environmental issues.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.