Friends of the Earth, et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC) Inc. (01/12/2000)

By: Dana Lenetz, Medill News Service

Questions presented

(1) Is a citizen's suit seeking civil penalties under the Clean Water Act constitutionally moot due to a lack of redressability, when the plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief? (2) Can the plaintiffs be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs, even though the case was dismissed for mootness, because the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the act?

Brief

The mercury level is rising in the North Tyger River.

That is what scientists said on behalf of three environmental groups, groups that sued Laidlaw Environmental Services in 1992 over its operation of Safety Kleen, a hazardous waste incinerator in Roebuck, S.C.

The three groups-Friends of the Earth, Citizens Local Environmental Action Network and the Sierra Club-sued Laidlaw for violating a provision of the Federal Clean Water Act. According to the suit, Laidlaw violated the act by discharging wastewater that contained illegal amounts of mercury into the North Tyger River.

Although the Department of Health and Control fined Laidlaw $100,000 in 1992 for its illegal dumping, Friends of the Earth and the two other environmental groups asked the court to increase the fine to $7.8 million.

Originally passed in 1974, the Clean Water Act bans the discharge of pollutants into the nation's water system, unless the pollutants are sanctioned by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

A NPDES permit specifies the types and amounts of contaminants allowed in a facility's discharge, as well as the monitoring requirements the facility must adhere to during the permit's term. Each permit is typically issued to a company by a state agency for a maximum of five years. According to Friends of the Earth, ""A good permit is a fundamental underpinning to the ultimate implementation and enforcement of the CleanWater Act.""

The Clean Water Act prevents a billion pounds of toxic chemicals from entering the nation's waterways every year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

By the time U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson ruled on the lawsuit in 1997, Laidlaw had come into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The company had installed $1 million worth of equipment to limit its mercury discharge.

However, Anderson imposed a $405,800 penalty against Laidlaw for violating its NPDES permit.

He also denied the groups's request for injunctive relief and stayed the issue of attorneys' fees until the appeal is resolved.

The three environmental groups appealed, claiming the court ""abused its discretion"" by imposing an ""inadequate penalty."" Laidlaw also appealed, arguing that Friends of the Earth, Citizens Local Environmental Action Network and the Sierra Club lacked legal standing to sue because ""they suffered no injury.""

In 1998, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Laidlaw's argument and reasoned that the groups could not recover civil penalties after injunctive relief was denied. In so holding, the court concluded that the action was moot because the civil penalties, which were the only remedy left to the environmental groups, would not address any injury they suffered.

""The doctrine of standing has always been an essential component of federal jurisdiction,"" the court wrote. ""In order to have standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an actual or threatened injury; the injury must have been caused by the defendant's complained-of conduct; and the injury must be redressable. The continued presence of these elements ensures that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.""

Laidlaw closed its Roebuck facility in 1998.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 1, 1999 and allowed Public Citizen leave to file a brief as amicus curiae.

On Jan. 12, 2000, a Court divided 7-2 reversed, holding that the company's actions to be in substantial compliance with its permit does not moot Friends of the Earth's suit for civil penalties. The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also held that Friends of the Earth had standing to bring the suit on behalf of its members so long as the members would have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake were germane to the organization's purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested required individual members' participation in the lawsuit.

The Court decided not to address the question of attorneys' fee, remanding the issue for consideration by the district court.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.