By Laurie Asseo, Associated Press, 01/12/00
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court today upheld citizen groups' right to sue alleged polluters under the Clean Water Act even though any financial damages awarded would be paid to the federal government.
The ruling also said polluters sued by private citizens under federal environmental laws cannot necessarily avoid paying damages by stopping their misconduct while the case is ongoing.
The 7-2 decision gave environmental groups a new chance to collect damages from a South Carolina hazardous waste plant for violations of limits on wastewater discharge.
"Congress has found that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases do more than promote immediate compliance ... they also deter future violations," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.
"A defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case," Ginsburg added. A case might be declared moot if it were clear that the unlawful conduct could not reasonably be expected to reoccur, she said.
The case was a test of the Clean Water Act's provision letting private citizens file lawsuits to help enforce the law. Under the law, citizens can seek court orders requiring an end to misconduct, plus financial penalties to be paid to the federal government.
Brian Dunkiel of Friends of the Earth said after today's ruling, "This case had the potential to severely limit a citizen's ability to enforce the Clean Water Act. ... We are pleased that the court has maintained the status quo" on enforcement of the law.
Friends of the Earth was one of several environmental groups that sued Laidlaw Environmental Services in 1992 over its operation of a hazardous waste incinerator in Roebuck, S.C., that discharged wastewater into the North Tyger River. The facility was closed in 1998.
By the time a federal judge ruled on the lawsuit in 1997, Laidlaw was found to have come into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The judge ruled that the environmental groups were not entitled to a court order designed to deter future violations, but imposed a $405,800 in civil penalties for past violations.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the penalty in 1998 and declared the case moot. The court said that once the judge decided not to ban future violations, the only remaining remedy -- a civil penalty -- would not benefit the environmental groups because it would be paid to the federal government.
Today, the Supreme Court said the civil penalty was intended to deter future misconduct, and therefore it could benefit the environmental groups.
The justices ordered the case returned to a lower court to determine whether Laidlaw could show that the case was moot because future violations could not be expected to occur.
Ginsburg's opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing for the two, Scalia said the ruling "violates traditional principles of federal standing -- thereby permitting law enforcement to be placed in the hands of private individuals."
The case is Friends of the Earth vs. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 98-822.
