Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

812 F.2d 721 (1987)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
812 F.2d 721 (1987)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

In 1985 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) promulgated a rule establishing that the recommended maximum contaminant level (RMCL) for fluoride in drinking water was 4 milligrams per liter. The EPA passed the rule pursuant to its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorized the EPA to set the RMCLs of different contaminants, including fluoride, by considering any known or anticipated adverse health effects caused by the contaminant. In response to the EPA’s promulgation of the rule, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (the defense council) and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (the department) each filed an action against the EPA in federal district court on the ground that the EPA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining the RMCL for fluoride. The defense council claimed that the EPA should have promulgated a lower RMCL because (1) the amount provided did not unequivocally protect individuals against crippling skeletal fluorosis, particularly for those individuals who drank more than average amounts of water, (2) the amount failed to target dental fluorosis, because the EPA had defined adverse health effects as anything amounting to functional rather than cosmetic impairments, and (3) the EPA did not consider other risks associated with fluoride. However, the EPA questioned the accuracy of the data provided and explained the reason it felt the data was inaccurate. The defense council introduced evidence that dental fluorosis could lead to psychological issues, including issues with self-confidence due to a change in one’s physical appearance, and argued that such issues constituted adverse health effects. The department argued that the EPA should not have promulgated any rule establishing an RMCL for fluoride, because the data on RMCLs was inconclusive. The district court returned a verdict in favor of the EPA. The matter was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 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
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 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