Case Studies On Environmental Violations
Environmental violations often involve illegal pollution, hazardous waste disposal, regulatory non-compliance, and failure to protect natural resources. Courts interpret environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and CERCLA.
Below are seven detailed case studies that shaped environmental law.
1. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007)
Central Issue
Multiple states sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
Legal Question
Do GHGs count as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, thus requiring EPA regulation?
Court’s Ruling
Yes.
GHGs such as CO₂ are “air pollutants.”
The EPA must regulate them if they pose a risk to public health or welfare.
EPA cannot decline regulation without a scientifically justifiable reason.
Impact
This case set the foundation for U.S. climate policy and required EPA to regulate carbon emissions. It also broadened judicial recognition of climate change as a legally cognizable harm.
2. United States v. Olin Corporation (Eleventh Circuit, 1995)
Central Issue
Olin Corporation was accused of contaminating groundwater with hazardous waste from pesticide manufacturing, violating CERCLA and RCRA.
Legal Question
Can CERCLA be applied to historic pollutant disposal that occurred before the statute’s enactment?
Court’s Ruling
Yes.
CERCLA can apply to past contamination if hazardous substances continue to pose a current threat.
Liability is retroactive, meaning companies remain responsible even if disposal took place decades earlier.
Impact
Strengthened federal authority to enforce cleanup responsibilities for long-term hazardous sites. Established that companies cannot avoid liability by claiming old pollution.
3. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000)
Central Issue
Laidlaw unlawfully discharged mercury and other pollutants into the North Tyger River. Environmental groups sued under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision.
Legal Question
Do citizens have standing to sue for environmental violations even if harm is aesthetic or recreational, and even if the company later returns to compliance?
Court’s Ruling
Yes.
Individuals can sue if pollution impacts their recreational, aesthetic, or economic interests.
Compliance after filing does not moot the case.
Impact
Expanded the scope of environmental standing, empowering communities to hold polluters accountable even when the government does not act.
4. United States v. Duke Energy Corp. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007)
Central Issue
Duke Energy increased its plant capacity without obtaining New Source Review (NSR) permits, possibly violating the Clean Air Act.
Legal Questions
Does a change that increases annual emissions require a permit even if hourly emissions rates do not increase?
Can EPA interpret “modification” differently under various CAA programs?
Court’s Ruling
The EPA may use different definitions of “modification” for different Clean Air Act programs.
A project increasing total annual emissions counts as a modification requiring a permit.
Impact
Strengthened EPA’s authority to oversee plant expansions and ensure upgrades don’t increase pollution without regulatory oversight.
5. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978)
Central Issue
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) built the Tellico Dam, but its operation threatened the endangered snail darter fish. The ESA prohibits actions destroying critical habitats.
Legal Question
Can a nearly completed federal project be halted to protect an endangered species?
Court’s Ruling
Yes.
The ESA’s mandate to protect endangered species is strict and absolute.
Economic costs cannot override statutory protections.
Impact
One of the most influential cases in environmental law. It confirmed that endangered species protection takes precedence over federal development projects.
6. United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (Fourth Circuit, 1988)
Central Issue
The company discharged oily wastes into navigable waters without proper permits.
Legal Question
Does the Clean Water Act impose strict liability for unauthorized pollutant discharges?
Court’s Ruling
Yes.
Intent is irrelevant.
Any unpermitted discharge of pollutants into navigable waters violates the CWA.
Impact
Reinforced that the Clean Water Act is a strict-liability statute, making enforcement easier and preventing companies from avoiding responsibility by claiming lack of intent.
7. United States v. Monsanto Co. (Fourth Circuit, 1988)
Central Issue
Monsanto improperly disposed of hazardous chemical waste, contaminating soil and groundwater in violation of RCRA.
Legal Question
Is a corporate entity criminally liable for knowing improper hazardous waste disposal even if individual employees committed the acts?
Court’s Ruling
Yes.
Corporations can be held criminally liable if employees act within the scope of employment.
Hazardous waste violations do not require proof of environmental harm—only improper handling or disposal.
Impact
Reinforced corporate criminal liability and strengthened enforcement of hazardous waste regulations.
Overall Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
1. Broad Standing for Environmental Plaintiffs
Citizens can sue polluters when pollution affects their use and enjoyment of natural resources.
(Laidlaw)
2. Retroactive Liability for Pollution
Companies cannot escape responsibility for historic contamination.
(Olin Corporation)
3. Expansive Interpretation of “Pollutant” and “Pollution”
Greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants.
(Massachusetts v. EPA)
4. Strict Liability Under Environmental Statutes
Intent isn’t necessary for liability.
(Newport News Shipbuilding)
5. Federal Agencies Must Justify Environmental Inaction
EPA must regulate pollutants if evidence shows harm.
(Massachusetts v. EPA)
6. Development Projects Must Yield to Environmental Protections
Endangered species protections supersede economic considerations.
(TVA v. Hill)
7. Corporate Entities Are Criminally Liable for Environmental Crimes
Employers must supervise employees and ensure legal compliance.
(United States v. Monsanto)
RELATED Blog
comments