Plaintiff residents in the area of North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued.
The Court held that the plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina'sNorth Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued.[1] Standing was properly based on the fact that the residents alleged that they would have used the river for recreational purposes, but could not because of the pollution.[2]
The defendant polluter also claimed that the case was moot because it had ceased polluting, and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution complained of. The Court noted that the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, and could reopen similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the fine sought. Therefore, the case was held not to be moot.[2]
The Supreme Court's majority in Friends ruled that plaintiffs did not need to prove an actual (particular) harm to residents. Writing for the majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that injury to the plaintiff came from lessening the "aesthetic and recreational values of the area" for residents and users of the river because of their knowledge of Laidlaw's repeated violations of its clean water permit.[2]
In addition, the case held that a civil penalty could be enforced against an entity even though the interests protected were private. The court agreed with Congress in holding that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases "do more than promote immediate compliance by limiting the defendant's economic incentive to delay its attainment of permit limits; they also deter future violations."[1]
The 7–2 decision was written by Justice Ginsburg, and joined by Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer. Stevens and Kennedy each filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas.[1]
^ abcFriends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528U.S. 167 (2000).
^ abcNOBLE, JAMES M. (2002). "Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw and the Increasingly Broad Standard for Citizen Standing to Sue in Environmental Litigation". Natural Resources Journal. 42 (2): 415–432. ISSN 0028-0739. JSTOR 24888885.
External links
Text of Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528U.S. 167 (2000) is available from:FindlawJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
friends, earth, laidlaw, environmental, services, 2000, united, states, supreme, court, case, that, addressed, regarding, standing, mootness, friends, earth, laidlaw, environmental, services, supreme, court, united, statesargued, october, 1999decided, january,. Friends of the Earth Inc v Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc 528 U S 167 2000 was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness Friends of the Earth Inc et al v Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued October 12 1999Decided January 12 2000Full case nameFriends of the Earth Incorporated et al v Laidlaw Environmental Services TOC IncorporatedCitations528 U S 167 more 120 S Ct 693 145 L Ed 2d 610 2000 U S LEXIS 501 49 ERC BNA 1769 163 A L R Fed 749 2000 Cal Daily Op Service 289 2000 Daily Journal DAR 375 30 ELR 20246 1999 Colo J C A R 142 13 Fla L Weekly Fed S 37Case historyPrior956 F Supp 588 D S C 1997 vacated and remanded 149 F 3d 303 4th Cir 1998 cert granted 525 U S 1176 1999 HoldingPlaintiff residents in the area of North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionsMajorityGinsburg joined by Rehnquist Stevens O Connor Kennedy Souter BreyerConcurrenceStevensConcurrenceKennedyDissentScalia joined by ThomasLaws appliedU S Const Art IIIThe Court held that the plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina s North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued 1 Standing was properly based on the fact that the residents alleged that they would have used the river for recreational purposes but could not because of the pollution 2 The defendant polluter also claimed that the case was moot because it had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution complained of The Court noted that the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory and could reopen similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the fine sought Therefore the case was held not to be moot 2 The Supreme Court s majority in Friends ruled that plaintiffs did not need to prove an actual particular harm to residents Writing for the majority Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that injury to the plaintiff came from lessening the aesthetic and recreational values of the area for residents and users of the river because of their knowledge of Laidlaw s repeated violations of its clean water permit 2 In addition the case held that a civil penalty could be enforced against an entity even though the interests protected were private The court agreed with Congress in holding that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases do more than promote immediate compliance by limiting the defendant s economic incentive to delay its attainment of permit limits they also deter future violations 1 The 7 2 decision was written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justices Rehnquist Stevens O Connor Kennedy Souter and Breyer Stevens and Kennedy each filed a concurring opinion Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Thomas 1 See also EditList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 528 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume Friends of the Earth US References Edit a b c Friends of the Earth Inc v Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc 528 U S 167 2000 a b c NOBLE JAMES M 2002 Friends of the Earth v Laidlaw and the Increasingly Broad Standard for Citizen Standing to Sue in Environmental Litigation Natural Resources Journal 42 2 415 432 ISSN 0028 0739 JSTOR 24888885 External links EditText of Friends of the Earth Inc v Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc 528 U S 167 2000 is available from Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Friends of the Earth Inc v Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc amp oldid 1129563254, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
