Switch to Desktop Site
 
 

Supreme Court rejects environmentalists' plea: why Scalia dissented

The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 against environmentalists' bid to force the EPA to regulate runoff from logging roads. But how federal agencies' rules are interpreted needs to be reviewed, Scalia warned.

Image

A US Bureau of Land Management forester checks the slope of a planned road on a logging project on federal forest land outside Ruch, Ore., March 2011. The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 against environmentalists' bid to force the EPA to regulate runoff from logging roads.

Jeff Barnard/AP/File

About these ads

Logging companies do not need a federal permit regulating rainwater flowing off logging roads in an Oregon state forest, the US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 7-1 decision appears to have set the stage for a future high court showdown over the extent of judicial deference due when a federal agency interprets its own rules.

Wednesday’s opinion ends a legal battle first launched in 2006 by the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz. How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.
 

The environmental group sought to force the Environmental Protection Agency to take action against the logging company, Georgia-Pacific West, for storm-water runoff that carried heavy sediment into two rivers flowing through Oregon’s Tillamook State Forest.

The group said EPA regulations cover the runoff, and that the agency was ignoring its own rules. EPA officials disagreed.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. But a panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling with the environmental group that storm-water runoff fell within the ambit of EPA regulations.

Next

Page:   1   |   2   |   3

Share