Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973)


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated certain cement plants as potentially significant contributors to air pollution under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412. Subsequently, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus (defendant) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to set performance standards capping the emissions of cement plants. The proposed regulations and accompanying background information provided a brief summary of test results upon which the proposed performance standards were based, but did not disclose any test-site information or the methodology employed. The EPA was required to issue its final performance standards within 90 days of providing notice of the proposed standards. After the comment period, the final performance standards were incorporated into EPA regulations. The Portland Cement Association (plaintiff) petitioned for review of the EPA’s performance standards. While the case was pending, the EPA issued a supplemental statement disclosing that (1) the proposed standards were based on testing of a particular type of filter and (2) additional successful testing had been performed during the comment period. A month later, the EPA disclosed the dates, locations, and methodology of both the initial testing and the second round of testing conducted during the comment period.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Leventhal, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.