Public Citizen v. United States Trade Representative
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
5 F.3d 549 (1993)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 1990 the United States, Mexico, and Canada began negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would create a free-trade zone among the countries. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) (defendant) represented the United States in negotiations. While negotiating NAFTA, USTR did not create an environmental-impact statement for NAFTA. In 1992 President Clinton signed NAFTA. Before President Clinton sent NAFTA to Congress for approval, Public Citizen (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against USTR, asserting that USTR was required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to create an environmental-impact statement for NAFTA. NEPA required federal agencies proposing legislation to create an environmental-impact statement analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed legislation. USTR moved to dismiss the case, arguing that its failure to create an environmental-impact statement was not a final agency action that was reviewable by a court under § 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act, because the action that affected Public Citizen—the act of sending NAFTA to Congress for approval—would be performed by the president, not USTR. The district court granted summary judgment for Public Citizen and ordered USTR to create an environmental-impact statement for NAFTA. USTR appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mikva, C.J.)
Concurrence (Randolph, 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.