steel
aka
chicago
steel
pickling
citizens
better
environment
argued
october
decided
march
held
none
relief
sought
likely
remedy
respondent
alleged
injury
fact
respondent
lacks
standing
maintain
suit
lower
courts
lack
jurisdiction
entertain
pp
merits
issue
permits
citizen
suits
purely
past
also
jurisdictional
occupy
status
standing
sue
question
must
resolved
first
firmly
established
district
jurisdiction
defeated
absence
valid
opposed
arguable
cause
action
see
bell
hood
jurisdiction
exists
right
recover
sustained
one
reading
constitution
laws
defeated
another
id
unless
claim
clearly
appears
immaterial
wholly
insubstantial
frivolous
otherwise
devoid
merit
involve
federal
controversy
see
oneida
indian
nation
county
oneida
respondent
wins
one
construction
epcra
loses
another
claim
frivolous
immaterial
unreasonable
read
provides
district
shall
jurisdiction
actions
brought
subsection
enforce
epcra
requirement
impose
civil
penalty
provided
violation
requirement
making
elements
cause
action
jurisdictional
rather
merely
specifying
remedial
powers
gwaltney
smithfield
chesapeake
bay
foundation
well
cases
deciding
statutory
standing
question
constitutional
standing
question
distinguished
case
called
existence
cause
action
jurisdictional
decided
question
resolving
dispute
concerning
existence
article
iii
case
controversy
principle
turn
every
statutory
question
epcra
citizen
suit
question
jurisdiction
raise
sua
sponte
raised
pp
declines
endorse
doctrine
hypothetical
jurisdiction
several
courts
appeals
found
proper
proceed
immediately
merits
question
despite
jurisdictional
objections
least
merits
question
readily
resolved
prevailing
party
merits
prevailing
party
jurisdiction
denied
doctrine
carries
courts
beyond
bounds
authorized
judicial
action
thus
offends
fundamental
principles
long
venerable
line
cases
held
without
proper
jurisdiction
proceed
note
jurisdictional
defect
dismiss
suit
see
capron
van
noorden
cranch
arizonans
official
english
arizona
bell
hood
supra
national
railroad
passenger
national
assn
railroad
passengers
norton
mathews
secretary
navy
avrech
per
curiam
augenblick
philbrook
glodgett
chandler
judicial
council
tenth
circuit
distinguished
pronounce
upon
law
meaning
constitutionality
jurisdiction
definition
ultra
vires
act
pp
respondent
lacks
standing
sue
standing
irreducible
constitutional
minimum
necessary
make
justiciable
case
controversy
article
iii
lujan
defenders
wildlife
contains
three
requirements
injury
fact
plaintiff
causation
injury
defendant
complainedof
conduct
likelihood
requested
relief
redress
injury
ibid
even
assuming
respondent
asserts
petitioner
failure
report
epcra
information
timely
manner
lingering
effects
failure
constitute
concrete
injury
fact
respondent
members
satisfies
article
iii
cf
complaint
nevertheless
fails
redressability
test
none
specific
items
relief
declaratory
judgment
petitioner
violated
epcra
injunctive
relief
authorizing
respondent
make
periodic
inspections
petitioner
facility
records
requiring
petitioner
give
respondent
copies
compliance
reports
orders
requiring
petitioner
pay
epcra
civil
penalties
treasury
reimburse
respondent
litigation
conceivable
relief
complaint
final
general
request
serve
reimburse
respondent
losses
caused
petitioner
late
reporting
eliminate
effects
late
reporting
upon
respondent
pp
vacated
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
thomas
joined
breyer
joined
parts
iv
filed
concurring
opinion
kennedy
joined
breyer
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
souter
joined
parts
iii
iv
ginsburg
joined
part
iii
ginsburg
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
steel
company
aka
chicago
steel
ling
company
petitioner
citizens
better
environment
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
march
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
private
enforcement
action
citizensuit
provision
emergency
planning
community
act
epcra
stat
case
presents
merits
question
answered
affirmative
appeals
seventh
circuit
whether
epcra
authorizes
suits
purely
past
violations
also
presents
jurisdictional
question
whether
respondent
plaintiff
standing
bring
action
respondent
association
individuals
interested
environmental
protection
sued
petitioner
small
manufacturing
company
chicago
past
violations
epcra
epcra
establishes
framework
state
regional
local
agencies
designed
inform
public
presence
hazardous
toxic
chemicals
provide
emergency
response
event
release
central
operation
reporting
require
ments
compelling
users
specified
toxic
hazardous
chemicals
file
annual
emergency
hazardous
chemical
inventory
forms
toxic
chemical
release
forms
contain
inter
alia
name
location
facility
name
quantity
chemical
hand
case
toxic
chemicals
method
employed
annual
quantity
released
environmental
medium
inventory
forms
given
calendar
year
due
following
march
release
forms
following
july
enforcement
epcra
take
place
many
fronts
environmental
protection
agency
epa
powerful
enforcement
arsenal
may
seek
criminal
civil
administrative
penalties
state
local
governments
also
seek
civil
penalties
well
injunctive
relief
purposes
case
however
crucial
enforcement
mechanism
provision
likewise
authorizes
civil
penalties
injunctive
relief
see
provides
person
may
commence
civil
action
behalf
owner
operator
facility
failure
among
things
omplete
submit
inventory
form
section
title
section
title
prerequisite
bringing
suit
plaintiff
must
days
prior
filing
complaint
give
notice
administrator
epa
state
alleged
violation
occurs
alleged
violator
citizen
suit
may
go
forward
administrator
commenced
diligently
pursuing
administrative
order
civil
action
enforce
requirement
concerned
impose
civil
penalty
respondent
sent
notice
petitioner
administrator
relevant
illinois
authorities
alleg
turns
petitioner
failed
since
first
year
epcra
filing
deadlines
complete
submit
requisite
inventory
release
forms
upon
receiving
notice
petitioner
filed
overdue
forms
relevant
agencies
epa
chose
bring
action
petitioner
waiting
period
expired
respondent
filed
suit
federal
district
petitioner
promptly
filed
motion
dismiss
federal
rule
civil
procedure
contending
filings
date
complaint
filed
jurisdiction
entertain
suit
present
violation
epcra
allow
suit
purely
historical
violation
respondent
allegation
untimeliness
filing
claim
upon
relief
granted
district
agreed
petitioner
points
app
pet
cert
appeals
reversed
concluding
citizens
may
seek
penalties
epcra
violators
file
statutory
deadline
receiving
notice
granted
certiorari
ii
granted
certiorari
case
resolve
conflict
interpretation
epcra
adopted
seventh
circuit
interpretation
previously
adopted
sixth
circuit
atlantic
legal
foundation
musical
instruments
case
relied
district
acknowledged
seventh
circuit
factually
indistinguishable
petitioner
however
petition
certiorari
briefs
merits
raised
issue
respondent
standing
maintain
suit
hence
jurisdiction
entertain
though
dispute
point
see
part
iii
infra
normally
considered
threshold
question
must
resolved
respondent
favor
proceeding
merits
justice
stevens
opinion
concurring
judgment
however
claims
question
whether
permits
cause
action
also
jurisdictional
equivalent
claim
resolved
first
whether
significant
implications
case
many
others
point
warrants
extended
discussion
firmly
established
cases
absence
valid
opposed
arguable
cause
action
implicate
jurisdiction
courts
statutory
constitutional
power
adjudicate
case
see
generally
wright
miller
federal
practice
procedure
cases
cited
ed
stated
bell
hood
urisdiction
defeated
possibility
averments
might
fail
state
cause
action
petitioners
actually
recover
rather
district
jurisdiction
right
petitioners
recover
complaint
sustained
constitution
laws
given
one
construction
defeated
given
another
id
unless
claim
clearly
appears
immaterial
made
solely
purpose
obtaining
jurisdiction
claim
wholly
insubstantial
frivolous
id
see
also
bray
alexandria
women
health
clinic
fair
kohler
die
specialty
dismissal
lack
subjectmatter
jurisdiction
inadequacy
federal
claim
proper
claim
insubstantial
implausible
foreclosed
prior
decisions
otherwise
completely
devoid
merit
involve
federal
controversy
oneida
indian
nation
county
oneida
see
also
romero
international
terminal
operating
respondent
wins
one
construction
epcra
loses
another
justice
stevens
argue
respondent
claim
frivolous
fact
acknowledges
language
provision
ambiguous
post
justice
stevens
relies
treatment
similar
issue
jurisdictional
gwaltney
smithfield
chesapeake
bay
foundation
post
statute
issue
case
however
creating
cause
action
went
say
district
courts
shall
jurisdiction
without
regard
amount
controversy
citizenship
parties
provide
various
forms
relief
emphasis
added
italicized
phrase
strongly
suggested
perhaps
misleadingly
provision
addressing
genuine
jurisdiction
corresponding
provision
present
case
however
reads
follows
district
shall
jurisdiction
actions
brought
subsection
section
owner
operator
facility
enforce
requirement
concerned
impose
civil
penalty
provided
violation
requirement
unreasonable
read
making
elements
cause
action
subsection
jurisdictional
rather
merely
specifying
remedial
powers
viz
enforce
violated
requirement
impose
civil
penalties
jurisdiction
observed
word
many
many
meanings
vanness
cadc
commonplace
term
used
evidently
see
action
brought
section
commission
may
seek
shall
jurisdiction
impose
civil
penalty
amount
higher
triple
monetary
gain
person
violation
actions
brought
subsection
district
courts
shall
jurisdiction
grant
appropriate
relief
including
injunctive
relief
compensatory
exemplary
damages
actions
brought
subsection
district
courts
shall
jurisdiction
grant
appropriate
relief
including
limited
injunctive
relief
compensatory
exemplary
damages
also
case
gwaltney
opinion
display
slightest
awareness
anything
turned
upon
whether
existence
cause
action
past
violations
technically
indeed
nothing
substance
district
statutory
jurisdiction
suit
event
since
continuing
violations
also
alleged
see
true
justice
stevens
points
issue
article
iii
standing
addressed
end
opinion
technically
addressed
outset
statutory
question
jurisdictional
also
really
matter
since
article
iii
standing
event
found
short
matter
jurisdictional
character
elements
cause
action
gwaltney
made
substantive
difference
even
procedural
difference
seemed
aware
assumed
parties
assumed
without
discussion
often
said
jurisdictional
rulings
sort
gwaltney
even
called
ruling
point
rather
dictum
precedential
effect
see
lewis
casey
federal
election
nra
political
victory
fund
tucker
truck
lines
even
authoritative
point
distinctive
statute
issue
fanciful
think
gwaltney
revised
established
jurisprudence
failure
cause
action
automatically
produce
failure
jurisdiction
adopted
expansive
principle
statute
saying
district
shall
jurisdiction
remedy
violations
specified
ways
renders
existence
violation
necessary
subjectmatter
jurisdiction
justice
stevens
concurrence
devotes
large
portion
discussion
cases
statutory
standing
question
decided
question
constitutional
standing
see
post
also
irrelevant
statutory
standing
question
justice
stevens
us
decide
first
wishes
resolve
whether
epcra
authorizes
plaintiff
sue
assuredly
whether
scope
epcra
right
action
includes
past
violations
question
held
goes
merits
statutory
standing
see
northwest
airlines
county
kent
question
whether
federal
statute
creates
claim
relief
jurisdictional
romero
international
terminal
operating
util
northwestern
public
service
though
replete
extensive
case
discussions
case
citations
rationalizations
syllogoids
see
post
infra
justice
stevens
opinion
conspicuously
lacks
one
central
feature
single
case
done
proposes
call
existence
cause
action
jurisdictional
decide
question
resolving
dispute
concerning
existence
article
iii
case
controversy
course
even
solid
precedent
contradicting
justice
stevens
position
consequences
alone
enough
condemn
turn
every
statutory
question
epcra
citizen
suit
question
jurisdiction
justice
stevens
analysis
grant
jurisdiction
actions
brought
withholds
juris
diction
claims
involving
purely
past
violations
past
violations
fact
covered
parity
reasoning
dispute
whether
omission
particular
item
constituted
failure
complete
form
whether
particular
manner
delivery
complied
time
requirement
submit
form
agreed
defendant
point
action
brought
dismissed
lack
jurisdiction
rather
decided
merits
moreover
statutory
arguments
since
jurisdictional
considered
even
though
raised
earlier
raise
sua
sponte
see
mt
healthy
city
bd
ed
doyle
great
southern
fire
proof
hotel
jones
congress
course
create
strange
scheme
referring
actions
brought
means
suits
contending
contains
certain
requirement
justice
stevens
correct
questions
may
regarded
jurisdictional
questions
thus
capable
decided
genuine
case
controversy
hard
see
left
limitation
article
iii
iii
addition
attempt
convert
merits
issue
case
jurisdictional
one
justice
stevens
concurrence
proceeds
post
argue
bolder
point
jurisdiction
need
addressed
first
anyway
even
statutory
question
fram
ed
terms
simply
characterize
whether
respondent
complaint
action
also
clear
power
decide
statutory
question
first
post
essentially
position
embraced
several
courts
appeals
find
proper
proceed
immediately
merits
question
despite
jurisdictional
objections
least
merits
question
readily
resolved
prevailing
party
merits
prevailing
party
jurisdiction
denied
see
sec
american
capital
investments
cert
denied
shelton
barnes
smith
avino
clow
dept
housing
urban
development
ferry
services
icc
cadc
parcel
land
industries
muszynski
ninth
circuit
denominated
characterizes
assuming
jurisdiction
purpose
deciding
doctrine
hypothetical
jurisdiction
see
troescher
decline
endorse
approach
carries
courts
beyond
bounds
authorized
judicial
action
thus
offends
fundamental
principles
separation
powers
conclusion
come
surprise
since
reflected
long
venerable
line
cases
without
jurisdiction
proceed
cause
jurisdiction
power
declare
law
ceases
exist
function
remaining
announcing
fact
dismissing
cause
ex
parte
mccardle
wall
every
writ
error
appeal
first
fundamental
question
jurisdiction
first
record
comes
question
bound
ask
answer
even
otherwise
suggested
without
respect
relation
parties
great
southern
fire
proof
hotel
jones
supra
requirement
jurisdiction
established
threshold
matter
spring
nature
limits
judicial
power
inflexible
without
exception
mansfield
swan
insistence
proper
jurisdiction
appear
begins
least
early
set
aside
judgment
defendant
instance
losing
plaintiff
failed
allege
basis
federal
jurisdiction
capron
van
noorden
cranch
last
term
restated
principle
clearest
fashion
unanimously
setting
aside
ninth
circuit
merits
decision
case
lost
elements
justiciable
controversy
federal
appellate
special
obligation
jurisdiction
also
lower
courts
cause
review
even
though
parties
prepared
concede
mitchell
maurer
see
juidice
vail
standing
record
discloses
lower
without
jurisdiction
notice
defect
although
parties
make
contention
concerning
lower
federal
lack
jurisdiction
jurisdiction
appeal
merits
merely
purpose
correcting
error
lower
entertaining
suit
corrick
footnotes
omitted
justice
stevens
arguments
contradicting
asserting
may
decide
cause
action
resolving
article
iii
jurisdictionare
readily
refuted
first
concurrence
seeks
convert
bell
hood
case
question
decided
article
iii
standing
question
post
bell
justice
stevens
asserts
held
jurisdiction
decide
whether
plaintiff
stated
cause
action
even
unclear
whether
plaintiff
injuries
redressed
post
italicized
phrase
italics
invites
reader
believe
article
iii
redressability
issue
true
whole
point
bell
true
bell
decided
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
district
dismissed
case
jurisdictional
grounds
believed
call
bivens
action
lie
held
nonexistence
cause
action
proper
basis
jurisdictional
dismissal
thus
uncertainty
whether
plaintiff
injuries
redressed
justice
stevens
refers
simply
uncertainty
whether
cause
action
precisely
bell
holds
article
iii
redressability
question
different
matter
relief
requested
plaintiffs
bell
money
damages
remedied
injury
fact
course
justice
stevens
used
understand
fundamental
distinction
arguing
cause
action
arguing
article
iii
redressability
written
former
argument
squarely
directed
jurisdiction
rather
existence
remedy
alleged
violation
federal
rights
issue
jurisdictional
sort
raises
motion
lake
country
estates
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
stevens
quoting
mt
healthy
bd
ed
doyle
justice
stevens
also
relies
national
railroad
passenger
national
assn
railroad
passengers
post
case
determine
whether
cause
action
existed
determining
plaintiff
article
iii
standing
question
injury
fact
effectiveness
requested
remedy
rather
national
railroad
passenger
determined
whether
statutory
cause
action
existed
determining
whether
plaintiff
came
within
zone
interests
cause
action
available
latter
question
issue
statutory
standing
nothing
whether
case
controversy
article
iii
much
extensive
defenses
practice
deciding
cause
action
resolving
article
iii
jurisdiction
offered
courts
appeals
rely
principally
upon
two
cases
norton
mathews
secretary
navy
avrech
per
curiam
readily
explained
think
extraordinary
procedural
postures
norton
case
came
us
direct
appeal
threejudge
district
jurisdictional
question
whether
action
properly
brought
forum
rather
ordinary
district
declined
decide
jurisdictional
question
merits
question
decided
companion
case
mathews
lucas
consequence
jurisdictional
question
effect
outcome
properly
convened
affirmed
vacated
remanded
fresh
decree
appeal
taken
appeals
outcome
foreordained
lucas
norton
mathews
supra
thus
norton
use
pretermission
jurisdictional
question
device
reaching
question
law
otherwise
gone
unaddressed
moreover
seems
regarded
merits
judgment
entered
basis
lucas
equivalent
jurisdictional
dismissal
failure
present
substantial
federal
question
said
disposition
lucas
renders
merits
present
case
decided
issue
thus
one
longer
substantial
jurisdictional
sense
think
clear
peculiar
case
involving
merits
issue
dispositively
resolved
companion
case
meant
overrule
sub
silentio
two
centuries
jurisprudence
affirming
necessity
determining
jurisdiction
proceeding
merits
see
clow
dissenting
avrech
also
involved
instance
intervening
decision
definitively
answered
merits
question
jurisdictional
question
case
raised
sua
sponte
oral
argument
supplemental
briefing
ordered
secretary
navy
avrech
came
decision
however
merits
issue
case
conclusively
resolved
parker
levy
case
argued
day
avrech
unwilling
decide
jurisdictional
question
without
oral
argument
avrech
supra
acknowledged
understatement
even
diligent
zealous
advocate
find
ardor
somewhat
dampened
arguing
jurisdictional
issue
decision
merits
foreordained
id
accordingly
disposed
case
basis
intervening
decision
parker
minimalist
per
curiam
opinion
first
thing
observed
avrech
supposed
jurisdictional
issue
technically
issue
whether
judgment
attacked
collaterally
suit
back
pay
although
avrech
like
earlier
case
augenblick
characterized
question
jurisdictional
later
held
squarely
see
schlesinger
councilman
event
peculiar
circumstances
avrech
hardly
permit
cited
general
proposition
easy
merits
question
may
decided
assumption
jurisdiction
contrary
fact
ordered
briefing
jurisdictional
question
sua
sponte
demonstrates
adherence
traditional
constitutionally
dictated
requirements
see
ferry
icc
thomas
concurring
part
concurring
denial
petition
review
cases
sometimes
cited
lower
courts
support
hypothetical
jurisdiction
similarly
distinguishable
augenblick
discussed
involve
jurisdictional
issue
philbrook
glodgett
jurisdictional
question
whether
suit
commissioner
vermont
department
social
welfare
deprivation
federal
rights
color
state
law
denying
payments
federally
funded
welfare
program
plaintiff
join
similar
claim
secretary
health
education
welfare
merits
issue
statutory
construction
involved
claim
secretary
precisely
involved
claim
commissioner
secretary
challenging
jurisdiction
assured
comply
judgment
entered
commissioner
disposition
case
dismiss
secretary
appeal
rule
failure
brief
jurisdictional
question
adequately
normally
acknowledged
obligation
inquire
jurisdiction
district
might
prevent
disposition
concluded
substantive
issue
decided
district
decided
even
concluded
secretary
properly
party
practical
difference
resulted
injunction
directed
well
commissioner
secretary
properly
contended
wrongful
id
finally
chandler
judicial
council
tenth
circuit
reserved
question
whether
jurisdiction
issue
writ
prohibition
mandamus
petitioner
exhausted
available
avenues
seeking
relief
writs
act
record
review
id
exhaustion
question
least
arguably
jurisdictional
clearly
treated
id
cases
must
acknowledged
diluted
absolute
purity
rule
article
iii
jurisdiction
always
antecedent
question
none
even
approaches
approval
doctrine
hypothetical
jurisdiction
enables
resolve
contested
questions
law
jurisdiction
doubt
hypothetical
jurisdiction
produces
nothing
hypothetical
comes
thing
advisory
opinion
disapproved
beginning
muskrat
hayburn
case
dall
much
legal
niceties
stake
statutory
especially
constitutional
elements
jurisdiction
essential
ingredient
separation
equilibration
powers
restraining
courts
acting
certain
times
even
restraining
acting
permanently
regarding
certain
subjects
see
richardson
schlesinger
reservists
comm
stop
war
pronounce
upon
meaning
constitutionality
state
federal
law
jurisdiction
definition
act
ultra
vires
iv
reached
end
seems
like
long
front
walk
finally
arrive
threshold
jurisdictional
question
whether
respondent
plaintiff
standing
sue
article
iii
constitution
extends
judicial
power
cases
controversies
always
taken
mean
cases
controversies
sort
traditionally
amenable
resolved
judicial
process
muskrat
supra
meaning
fairly
implied
text
since
otherwise
purported
restriction
upon
judicial
power
scarcely
restriction
every
criminal
investigation
conducted
executive
case
every
policy
issue
resolved
congressional
legislation
involves
controversy
however
sort
cases
controversies
article
iii
refers
since
constitution
central
mechanism
separation
powers
depends
largely
upon
common
understanding
activities
appropriate
legislatures
executives
courts
lujan
defenders
wildlife
standing
sue
part
common
understanding
takes
make
justiciable
case
whitmore
arkansas
irreducible
constitutional
minimum
standing
contains
three
requirements
lujan
defenders
wildlife
supra
first
foremost
must
alleged
ultimately
proven
injury
fact
harm
suffered
plaintiff
concrete
actual
imminent
whitmore
arkansas
supra
quoting
los
angeles
lyons
second
must
fairly
traceable
connection
plaintiff
injury
conduct
defendant
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
organization
third
must
likelihood
requested
relief
redress
alleged
injury
id
see
also
warth
seldin
triad
injury
fact
causation
redressability
comprises
core
article
iii
requirement
party
invoking
federal
jurisdiction
bears
burden
establishing
existence
see
dallas
turn
particulars
respondent
complaint
see
measures
article
iii
requirements
case
appeal
rule
motion
dismiss
pleadings
must
presume
general
allegations
complaint
encompass
specific
facts
necessary
support
allegations
lujan
national
wildlife
federation
complaint
contains
claims
behalf
dent
members
app
describes
respondent
organization
seeks
uses
acquires
data
reported
epcra
says
respondent
reports
members
public
storage
releases
toxic
chemicals
environment
advocates
changes
environmental
regulations
statutes
prepares
reports
members
public
seeks
reduction
toxic
chemicals
seeks
promote
effective
enforcement
environmental
laws
app
complaint
asserts
respondent
right
know
toxic
chemical
releases
interests
protecting
improving
environment
health
members
adversely
affected
petitioner
actions
failing
provide
timely
required
information
epcra
ibid
complaint
also
alleges
respondent
members
live
frequent
area
near
petitioner
facility
use
information
learn
toxic
chemical
releases
use
hazardous
substances
communities
plan
emergency
preparedness
event
accidents
attempt
reduce
toxic
chemicals
areas
live
work
visit
ibid
members
safety
health
recreational
economic
aesthetic
environmental
interests
information
claimed
adversely
affected
petitioner
actions
failing
file
timely
required
reports
epcra
ibid
appears
respondent
asserts
petitioner
failure
provide
epcra
information
timely
fashion
lingering
effects
failure
injury
fact
members
occasion
decide
whether
deprived
information
supposed
disclosed
least
deprived
one
particular
plan
concrete
injury
fact
satisfies
article
iii
cf
lujan
defenders
wildlife
need
reach
question
present
case
assuming
injury
fact
complaint
fails
third
test
standing
redressability
complaint
asks
declaratory
judgment
petitioner
violated
epcra
authorization
inspect
periodically
petitioner
facility
records
costs
borne
petitioner
order
requiring
petitioner
provide
respondent
copies
compliance
reports
submitted
epa
order
requiring
petitioner
pay
civil
penalties
per
day
violation
award
respondent
costs
connection
investigation
prosecution
matter
including
reasonable
attorney
expert
witness
fees
authorized
section
epcra
relief
deems
appropriate
app
none
specific
items
relief
sought
none
envision
appropriate
general
request
serve
reimburse
respondent
losses
caused
late
reporting
eliminate
effects
late
reporting
upon
respondent
first
item
request
declaratory
judgment
petitioner
violated
epcra
disposed
summarily
controversy
whether
petitioner
failed
file
reports
whether
failure
constitutes
violation
declaratory
judgment
worthless
respondent
seemingly
worthless
world
see
lewis
continental
bank
item
civil
penalties
authorized
statute
see
might
viewed
sort
compensation
redress
respondent
payable
respondent
damages
authorized
payable
treasury
requesting
therefore
respondent
seeks
remediation
costs
incurred
result
late
vindication
rule
undifferentiated
public
interest
faithful
execution
epcra
lujan
defenders
wildlife
supra
see
also
fairchild
hughes
suffice
justice
stevens
thinks
enough
respondent
gratified
seeing
petitioner
punished
infractions
punishment
deter
risk
future
harm
post
holdings
linda
richard
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
organization
inexplicable
obviously
principle
make
redressability
requirement
vanish
mere
bringing
suit
every
plaintiff
demonstrates
belief
favorable
judgment
make
happier
although
suitor
may
derive
great
comfort
joy
fact
treasury
cheated
wrongdoer
gets
deserts
nation
laws
faithfully
enforced
psychic
satisfaction
acceptable
article
iii
remedy
redress
cognizable
article
iii
injury
see
allen
wright
valley
forge
christian
college
americans
separation
church
state
relief
remedy
injury
suffered
bootstrap
plaintiff
federal
essence
redressability
requirement
item
investigation
prosecution
costs
authorized
section
assuredly
benefit
respondent
opposed
citizenry
large
obviously
however
plaintiff
achieve
standing
litigate
substantive
issue
bringing
suit
cost
bringing
suit
litigation
must
give
plaintiff
benefit
besides
reimbursement
costs
byproduct
litigation
interest
attorney
fees
insufficient
create
article
iii
case
controversy
none
exists
merits
underlying
claim
lewis
continental
bank
citing
diamond
charles
respondent
asserts
investigation
costs
seeks
incurred
prior
litigation
digging
emissions
storage
information
petitioner
filed
respondent
needed
purposes
see
brief
respondent
recovery
expenses
unrelated
litigation
assuredly
support
article
iii
standing
problem
entitlement
monetary
relief
complaint
invokes
covers
costs
litigation
respondent
finds
words
impaled
upon
horns
dilemma
expenses
reimbursable
statute
must
costs
litigation
reimbursement
costs
litigation
alone
support
standing
remaining
relief
respondent
seeks
item
giving
respondent
authority
inspect
petitioner
facility
records
item
compelling
petitioner
provide
respondent
copies
epa
compliance
reports
injunctive
nature
conceivably
remedy
past
wrong
aimed
deterring
petitioner
violating
epcra
future
see
brief
respondent
latter
objective
course
remedial
article
iii
purposes
threatened
injury
one
gravamens
complaint
respondent
alleged
continuing
violation
imminence
future
violation
injunctive
relief
requested
remedy
alleged
harm
allegation
facts
case
seems
basis
nothing
supports
requested
injunctive
relief
except
respondent
generalized
interest
deterrence
insufficient
purposes
article
iii
see
los
angeles
lyons
amicus
curiae
argues
injunctive
relief
constitute
remediation
presumption
future
injury
defendant
voluntarily
ceased
illegal
activity
response
litigation
even
occurs
complaint
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
makes
sword
shield
presumption
government
refers
applied
refute
assertion
mootness
defendant
sued
complaint
alleges
present
threatened
injury
ceases
activity
see
grant
immense
unacceptable
stretch
call
presumption
service
substitute
allegation
present
threatened
injury
upon
initial
standing
must
based
see
los
angeles
lyons
supra
accept
government
view
overrule
clear
precedent
requiring
allegations
future
injury
particular
concrete
littleton
past
exposure
illegal
conduct
show
present
case
controversy
regarding
injunctive
relief
unaccompanied
continuing
present
adverse
effects
see
also
renne
geary
mootness
exception
disputes
capable
repetition
yet
evading
review
revive
dispute
became
moot
action
commenced
respondent
alleges
past
infractions
eprca
continuing
violation
likelihood
future
violation
injunctive
relief
redress
injury
found
none
relief
sought
respondent
likely
remedy
alleged
injury
fact
must
conclude
respondent
lacks
standing
maintain
suit
lower
courts
lack
jurisdiction
entertain
however
desirable
prompt
resolution
merits
epcra
question
may
important
observing
constitutional
limits
set
upon
courts
system
separated
powers
epcra
await
another
day
judgment
vacated
case
remanded
instructions
direct
complaint
dismissed
ordered
steel
company
aka
chicago
steel
ling
company
petitioner
citizens
better
environment
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
march
justice
justice
kennedy
joins
concurring
join
opinion
agree
precedent
supports
holding
respondent
lacks
article
iii
standing
injuries
redressed
judgment
effect
require
payment
penalties
treasury
notes
ante
respondent
alleged
continuing
imminent
violation
emergency
planning
community
act
epcra
stat
requested
injunctive
relief
may
well
redressed
asserted
injury
also
agree
statement
federal
courts
certain
jurisdiction
reaching
merits
case
acknowledges
however
several
decisions
diluted
absolute
purity
rule
article
iii
jurisdiction
always
antecedent
question
ante
opinion
adequately
describes
assumption
jurisdiction
defensible
cases
see
ante
case
see
ante
write
separately
note
view
opinion
read
cataloging
exhaustive
list
circumstances
federal
courts
may
exercise
judgment
reserv
ing
difficult
questions
jurisdiction
case
alternatively
resolved
merits
favor
party
norton
mathews
chicago
steel
ling
company
petitioner
citizens
better
environment
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
march
justice
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
agree
respondent
case
lacks
article
iii
standing
agree
federal
courts
often
typically
decide
standing
questions
outset
case
order
decision
first
jurisdiction
merits
helps
better
restrict
use
federal
courts
adversarial
disputes
article
iii
defines
federal
judiciary
business
qualifying
words
often
typically
important
constitution
view
require
us
replace
words
word
always
constitution
impose
rigid
judicial
order
operations
cause
serious
practical
problems
previously
made
clear
courts
may
reserve
difficult
questions
jurisdiction
case
alternatively
resolved
merits
favor
party
norton
mathews
rule
makes
theoretical
sense
difficulty
jurisdictional
question
makes
reasonable
jurisdictional
assumption
rule
makes
enormous
practical
sense
help
appellate
judges
spend
time
energy
puzzling
correct
answer
intractable
jurisdictional
matter
assuming
easy
answer
substantive
merits
party
win
lose
regardless
importantly
insist
upon
rigid
order
operations
today
world
federal
caseloads
grown
enormously
generation
means
unnecessary
delay
consequent
added
cost
see
mecham
judicial
business
courts
report
director
report
proceedings
judicial
conference
indicating
annual
appellate
caseloads
increased
cases
filed
per
judgeship
district
caseloads
increased
cases
filed
per
judgeship
means
cumbersome
system
thereby
increases
least
small
degree
risk
justice
delayed
means
justice
denied
reason
make
ordinary
sequence
absolute
requirement
even
though
case
us
ordinary
exceptional
simply
reserve
judgment
matter
ante
concurring
therefore
join
parts
iv
opinion
steel
company
aka
chicago
steel
ling
company
petitioner
citizens
better
environment
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
march
justice
stevens
justice
souter
joins
parts
iii
iv
justice
ginsburg
joins
part
iii
concurring
judgment
case
presents
two
questions
whether
emergency
planning
community
act
epcra
et
seq
confers
federal
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
whether
respondent
standing
article
iii
constitution
elected
decide
constitutional
question
first
created
new
constitutional
law
always
prudent
avoid
passing
unnecessarily
undecided
constitutional
question
see
ashwander
tva
brandeis
concurring
answer
statutory
question
first
moreover
epcra
properly
construed
confer
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
leave
constitutional
question
another
day
statutory
issue
case
viewed
one
two
ways
whether
epcra
confers
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
whether
statute
creates
cause
action
either
analysis
power
answer
statutory
question
first
epcra
frames
question
terms
jurisdiction
section
district
shall
jurisdiction
actions
brought
owner
operator
facility
enforce
requirement
concerned
impose
civil
penalty
provided
violation
requirement
thus
authorizes
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
district
jurisdiction
actions
lacks
jurisdiction
given
text
statute
surprising
parties
district
framed
question
jurisdictional
terms
respondent
complaint
alleged
district
subject
matter
jurisdiction
section
epcra
app
merits
questions
raised
respondent
complaint
whether
steel
company
violated
epcra
relief
granted
district
however
made
ruling
merits
granted
steel
company
motion
dismiss
held
dismissal
required
respondent
merely
alleged
failure
timely
file
required
reports
violation
act
jurisdiction
citizen
suit
app
pet
cert
steel
company
also
framed
question
jurisdictional
one
briefs
threshold
issue
concerning
meaning
virtually
identical
question
decided
gwaltney
smithfield
chesapeake
bay
foundation
case
considered
whether
clean
water
act
allows
suits
wholly
past
violations
unanimously
characterized
question
matter
jurisdiction
case
must
decide
whether
clean
water
act
also
known
federal
water
pollution
control
act
confers
federal
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
see
also
block
community
nutrition
institute
citing
national
railroad
passenger
national
assn
railroad
passengers
national
railroad
passenger
ibid
resolve
comparable
statutory
issue
way
case
federal
courts
jurisdiction
address
merits
future
similar
cases
thus
case
choice
solving
statutory
question
standing
question
first
choice
merits
issue
jurisdictional
issue
rather
choice
two
jurisdictional
issues
routinely
held
presented
two
jurisdictional
questions
may
choose
one
answer
first
sierra
club
morton
example
presented
choice
statutory
jurisdictional
question
question
article
iii
standing
case
respondent
argued
petitioner
lacked
standing
administrative
procedure
act
constitution
rather
taking
constitutional
issue
stated
congress
authorized
public
officials
perform
certain
functions
according
law
provided
statute
judicial
review
actions
certain
circumstances
inquiry
standing
must
begin
determination
whether
statute
question
authorizes
review
behest
plaintiff
emphasis
added
concluded
petitioner
lacked
standing
statute
therefore
need
decide
whether
petitioner
suffered
sufficient
injury
article
iii
unanimous
bypassed
constitutional
standing
question
order
decide
statutory
question
therefore
construed
statute
concluded
respondents
bring
suit
statute
mention
constitutional
question
came
end
opinion
since
congressional
preclusion
judicial
review
effect
jurisdictional
need
address
standing
issue
decided
appeals
case
block
citing
national
railroad
passenger
finally
gladstone
realtors
village
bellwood
also
faced
choice
statutory
constitutional
jurisdictional
tion
case
presents
statutory
constitutional
questions
concerning
standing
sue
title
viii
statutory
question
whether
respondents
standing
sue
fair
housing
act
reluctant
address
constitutional
question
opted
decide
statutory
question
first
avoid
constitutional
question
possible
issue
meaning
critical
one
district
correctly
understood
applied
denying
respondents
standing
statute
reach
question
whether
minimum
requirements
art
iii
satisfied
appeals
correct
holding
respondents
statutory
standing
however
constitutional
question
squarely
presented
see
also
bennett
spear
slip
scalia
stating
first
question
present
case
whether
endangered
species
act
provision
negates
test
turning
constitutional
standing
question
determining
standing
existed
statute
food
commercial
workers
brown
group
analyzing
statutory
question
turning
constitutional
standing
question
ferry
services
icc
cadc
thomas
concurring
part
concurring
denial
petition
review
courts
exceed
scope
power
ground
passed
jurisdictional
ground
rested
upon
nonjurisdictional
courts
properly
rest
one
jurisdictional
ground
instead
another
thus
precedents
clearly
support
proposition
given
choice
two
jurisdictional
statutory
power
answer
statu
tory
question
first
rather
framing
question
terms
jurisdiction
also
possible
characterize
statutory
issue
case
whether
respondent
complaint
cause
action
framed
way
also
clear
power
decide
statutory
question
first
holding
bell
hood
demonstrates
always
jurisdiction
determine
jurisdiction
mine
workers
federal
also
jurisdiction
decide
whether
plaintiff
alleges
injured
violation
federal
law
stated
cause
action
indeed
bell
held
jurisdiction
decide
question
even
unclear
whether
plaintiff
injuries
redressed
thus
bell
demonstrates
power
decide
whether
cause
action
exists
even
unclear
whether
plaintiff
standing
national
railroad
passenger
also
makes
clear
power
decide
question
addressing
threshold
issues
case
faced
interrelated
questions
whether
amtrak
act
read
create
private
right
action
enforce
compliance
provisions
whether
federal
district
jurisdiction
terms
act
entertain
suit
whether
respondent
statutory
standing
bring
suit
choosing
method
analysis
stated
owever
phrased
threshold
question
clearly
whether
amtrak
act
provision
law
creates
cause
action
whereby
private
party
respondent
enforce
duties
obligations
imposed
act
right
action
exists
need
consider
whether
respondent
standing
bring
action
whether
district
jurisdiction
entertain
thus
regardless
whether
characterize
issue
terms
jurisdiction
causes
action
clearly
power
address
statutory
question
first
gwaltney
powerfully
demonstrates
point
noted
case
involved
statutory
question
virtually
identical
one
presented
statute
permitted
citizens
sue
wholly
past
violations
framed
question
one
jurisdiction
supra
also
said
case
presented
question
whether
plaintiffs
cause
action
regardless
label
resolved
statutory
question
without
pausing
consider
whether
plaintiffs
standing
sue
wholly
past
violations
course
fact
discuss
standing
gwaltney
establish
plaintiffs
standing
nonetheless
supports
proposition
issue
power
address
virtually
identical
statutory
question
case
well
disagrees
arguing
standing
question
must
addressed
first
ironically
however
first
addressing
standing
takes
long
excursion
entirely
loses
sight
basic
reason
standing
matter
importance
proper
functioning
judicial
process
gist
question
standing
whether
plaintiffs
alleged
personal
stake
outcome
controversy
assure
concrete
adverseness
sharpens
presentation
issues
upon
largely
depends
illumination
difficult
constitutional
questions
completely
disregards
core
purpose
standing
discussion
hypothetical
jurisdiction
portion
opinion
pure
dictum
entirely
unnecessary
explanation
decision
also
informed
adversary
submission
either
party
neither
topic
hypothetical
diction
cases
analyzed
distinguished
criticized
part
iii
subject
comment
briefs
submitted
parties
amici
therefore
benefit
concrete
adverseness
standing
doctrine
meant
ensure
discussion
short
comes
thing
advisory
opinion
disapproved
beginning
ante
see
also
muskrat
stressing
article
iii
limits
federal
courts
deciding
cases
controversies
arising
opposing
parties
doctrine
hypothetical
jurisdiction
irrelevant
case
presents
us
choice
two
threshold
questions
intricately
standing
problem
statute
confers
jurisdiction
suits
wholly
past
violations
opinion
reflects
fact
analysis
standing
issue
predicated
hypothesis
may
read
confer
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
think
reject
hypothesis
construe
standing
discussion
entirely
unnecessary
thus
ironically
engaged
version
hypothetical
jurisdiction
taken
pains
condemn
length
ii
important
reason
addressing
statutory
question
first
avoid
unnecessarily
passing
undecided
constitutional
question
new
york
transit
authority
beazer
ashwander
tva
brandeis
concurring
whether
correct
incorrect
constitutional
holding
represents
significant
extension
prior
case
law
conclusion
respondent
standing
comes
mechanistic
application
dressability
aspect
standing
doctrine
redressability
course
appear
anywhere
text
constitution
instead
judicial
creation
past
years
see
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
organization
linda
richard
judicial
interpretation
case
requirement
article
iii
lujan
defenders
wildlife
every
previous
case
denied
standing
lack
redressability
plaintiff
challenging
governmental
action
inaction
leeke
timmerman
per
curiam
suit
director
department
corrections
another
prison
official
simon
suit
secretary
treasury
commissioner
internal
revenue
warth
seldin
suit
town
penfield
members
penfield
zoning
planning
town
boards
linda
suit
prosecutor
see
also
renne
geary
suit
city
county
san
francisco
board
supervisors
local
officials
none
cases
involved
attempt
one
private
party
impose
statutory
sanction
another
private
party
addition
every
case
held
standing
lack
redressability
injury
plaintiff
defendant
indirect
dependent
action
third
party
true
two
cases
cites
redressability
prong
ante
see
also
simon
controversy
limitation
art
iii
requires
federal
act
redress
injury
fairly
traced
challenged
action
defendant
injury
results
independent
action
third
party
emphasis
added
warth
stating
indirectness
injury
may
make
substantially
difficult
meet
minimum
requirement
art
iii
holding
injury
issue
indirect
redressable
well
every
case
denied
standing
lack
redressability
leeke
injury
indirect
turned
action
prosecutor
party
linda
stating
party
invokes
judicial
power
must
able
show
sustained
immediately
danger
sustaining
direct
injury
emphasis
original
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
injury
indirect
turned
action
father
party
see
also
davis
pierce
administrative
law
treatise
ed
thus
far
aware
never
plaintiff
directly
injured
defendant
lacks
standing
sue
lack
redressability
acknowledges
respondent
standing
congress
authorized
payment
respondent
ante
civil
penalties
authorized
statute
might
viewed
sort
compensation
redress
respondent
payable
respondent
yet
fails
specify
payment
redress
respondent
injuries
payment
treasury
respondent
clearly
believes
punishment
steel
company
along
future
deterrence
steel
company
others
redresses
injury
basis
previous
standing
holdings
suggest
otherwise
one
private
party
injured
another
injury
redressed
least
two
ways
awarding
compensatory
damages
imposing
sanction
wrongdoer
minimize
risk
harmcausing
conduct
repeated
thus
cases
tort
redressed
award
punitive
damages
even
damages
payable
sovereign
provide
form
redress
individual
well
history
supports
proposition
punishment
deterrence
redress
injury
past
centuries
england
american
colonies
private
persons
regularly
prosecuted
criminal
cases
interest
punishing
defendant
deterring
violations
law
defendant
others
sufficient
support
standing
private
prosecutor
even
remedy
sentencing
defendant
jail
gallows
given
history
framers
article
iii
surely
considered
proceedings
cases
redress
injury
even
though
party
bringing
suit
receive
monetary
compensation
expanded
interpretation
redressability
requirement
another
consequence
epcra
congress
gave
enforcement
power
state
local
governments
reasoning
however
state
local
governments
standing
sue
past
violations
payment
treasury
redress
injury
governments
redress
respondent
injury
true
even
congress
explicitly
granted
state
local
governments
power
conclusion
unprecedented
argued
decision
rooted
another
separation
powers
concern
citizen
suit
somehow
interferes
executive
power
take
care
laws
faithfully
executed
art
ii
hard
see
however
epcra
provision
impinges
power
executive
initial
matter
case
respondent
merely
possesses
undifferentiated
public
interest
seeing
epcra
enforced
ante
see
also
lujan
defenders
wildlife
members
live
near
steel
alleged
sufficiently
particularized
injury
precedents
app
complaint
alleges
respondent
members
reside
property
engage
recreational
activities
breathe
air
use
areas
near
steel
company
facility
moreover
reasoning
respondent
standing
congress
authorized
payment
respondent
ante
civil
penalties
authorized
statute
might
viewed
sort
compensation
redress
respondent
payable
respondent
conclusion
unexceptional
given
respondent
particularized
interest
plaintiff
qui
tam
suit
action
deeply
rooted
history
ex
rel
marcus
hess
providing
actions
common
informer
interest
whatever
controversy
given
statute
existence
hundreds
years
england
country
ever
since
foundation
government
quoting
marvin
trout
adams
woods
cranch
marshall
almost
every
fine
forfeiture
penal
statute
may
recovered
action
debt
qui
tam
well
information
public
prosecutor
blackstone
commentaries
comment
yale
describing
qui
tam
actions
authorized
first
congress
see
also
lujan
defenders
wildlife
yet
unclear
separation
powers
question
turn
whether
plaintiff
receives
monetary
compensation
either
instance
private
citizen
enforcing
law
separation
powers
preclude
standing
congress
creates
legal
right
au
thorizes
compensation
plaintiff
unclear
separation
powers
dictate
contrary
result
congress
created
legal
right
directed
payment
made
federal
treasury
indeed
case
assuming
present
purposes
respondent
correctly
reads
statute
congress
authorized
standing
executive
branch
also
endorsed
interpretation
article
iii
brief
amicus
curiae
supporting
respondent
decision
anything
congress
executive
done
encroaches
domain
branches
federal
government
thus
quite
clear
holding
today
represents
significant
new
development
constitutional
jurisprudence
moreover
equally
clear
power
answer
statutory
question
first
therefore
necessary
reject
resolution
standing
issue
order
conclude
prudent
answer
question
statutory
construction
announcing
new
constitutional
doctrine
iii
epcra
provision
relevant
part
ny
person
may
commence
civil
action
behalf
owner
operator
facility
failure
following
complete
submit
inventory
form
section
title
omplete
submit
toxic
chemical
release
form
section
title
unfortunately
language
ambiguous
mean
sixth
circuit
held
citizen
right
sue
failure
complete
submit
required
forms
reading
owner
operator
filed
forms
district
longer
jurisdiction
atlantic
legal
foundation
musical
alternatively
seventh
circuit
held
phrases
section
section
incorporate
requirements
sections
including
requirement
reports
filed
particular
dates
citizens
better
environment
steel
although
language
provision
ambiguous
sections
epcra
indicate
congress
intend
confer
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
first
epcra
requires
private
litigant
give
alleged
violator
notice
least
days
bringing
suit
gwaltney
considered
import
substantially
identical
notice
requirement
concluded
indicated
congressional
intent
allow
suit
future
violations
purpose
notice
alleged
violator
give
opportunity
bring
complete
compliance
act
thus
likewise
render
unnecessary
citizen
suit
assume
respondents
urge
citizen
suits
may
target
wholly
past
violations
requirement
notice
alleged
violator
becomes
gratuitous
indeed
respondents
propounding
interpretation
act
think
reason
congress
require
notice
seemed
right
inform
alleged
violator
sued
brief
respondents
second
epcra
places
ban
citizen
suits
epa
commenced
enforcement
action
gwaltney
considered
similar
provision
concluded
indicated
congressional
intent
prohibit
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
bar
citizen
suits
governmental
enforcement
action
way
suggests
citizen
suit
meant
supplement
rather
supplant
governmental
action
permitting
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
act
undermine
supplementary
role
envisioned
citizen
suit
danger
best
illustrated
example
suppose
administrator
identified
violator
act
issued
compliance
order
suppose
otherwise
seek
civil
penalties
condition
violator
take
extreme
corrective
action
install
particularly
effective
expensive
chinery
otherwise
obliged
take
citizens
file
suit
months
years
later
der
seek
civil
penalties
administrator
chose
forgo
administrator
discretion
enforce
act
public
interest
tailed
considerably
might
said
discretion
state
enforcement
authorities
ents
interpretation
scope
citizen
suit
change
nature
citizens
role
terstitial
potentially
intrusive
finally
even
two
provisions
resolve
issue
settled
policy
adopting
acceptable
constructions
statutory
provisions
order
avoid
unnecessary
adjudication
constitutional
unresolved
standing
supports
construction
statute
authorize
suits
wholly
past
violations
stated
edward
debartolo
florida
gulf
coast
building
constr
trades
council
cardinal
principle
roots
chief
justice
marshall
opinion
murray
charming
betsy
cranch
long
applied
beyond
debate
see
also
nlrb
catholic
bishop
chicago
machinists
street
crowell
benson
lucas
alexander
panama
johnson
ex
rel
attorney
general
delaware
hudson
parsons
bedford
pet
story
iv
reasons
concur
judgment
join
opinion
notes
see
also
waste
arizona
mclane
foods
supp
jurisdiction
hear
citizen
suit
brought
pursuant
wholly
past
violation
epcra
delaware
valley
toxics
coalition
supp
ed
concludes
provide
federal
courts
jurisdiction
wholly
past
violations
epcra
atlantic
legal
foundation
whiting
door
manufacturing
supp
wdny
plain
language
epcra
reporting
enforcement
civil
penalty
provisions
logically
viewed
together
compel
conclusion
epcra
confers
federal
jurisdiction
citizen
lawsuits
past
violations
brief
petitioner
statute
conferring
jurisdiction
federal
courts
strictly
construed
doubts
resolved
jurisdiction
serious
doubts
congress
intended
citizens
sue
past
epcra
violations
citizen
plaintiffs
highlight
slight
difference
language
attempt
stretch
difference
federal
jurisdiction
see
also
gwaltney
contended
last
recorded
violation
occurred
several
weeks
respondents
filed
complaint
district
lacked
jurisdiction
respondents
action
gwaltney
app
opinion
douglas
dissenting
extract
oral
argument
solicitor
general
brief
respondent
sierra
club
morton
irreducible
minimum
requirement
standing
reflects
constitutional
limitation
judicial
power
whether
party
invoking
federal
jurisdiction
personal
stake
outcome
controversy
whether
dispute
touches
upon
legal
relations
parties
adverse
legal
interests
flast
cohen
see
also
brief
county
tulare
amicus
curiae
sierra
club
morton
pp
long
ago
held
standing
party
must
show
sustained
immediately
danger
sustaining
direct
injury
merely
suffers
indefinite
way
common
people
generally
outgrowth
article
iii
constitution
limits
jurisdiction
federal
courts
cases
controversies
const
art
iii
citation
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
brief
petitioners
block
community
nutrition
institute
pp
arguing
respondents
failed
meet
redressability
requirements
article
iii
see
also
brief
respondents
block
community
nutrition
institute
pp
reply
brief
petitioners
block
community
nutrition
institute
pp
justice
cardozo
stated
cause
action
may
mean
one
thing
one
purpose
something
different
another
davis
passman
quoting
memphis
cotton
oil
one
meaning
term
clear
citizens
cause
action
sue
statute
meaning
cause
action
question
whether
particular
plaintiff
member
class
litigants
may
matter
law
appropriately
invoke
power
davis
emphasis
deleted
see
also
concept
action
employed
specifically
determine
may
judicially
enforce
statutory
rights
obligations
emphasis
added
since
epcra
expressly
gives
citizens
right
sue
question
citizens
member
class
litigants
may
matter
law
appropriately
invoke
power
davis
jurisdiction
defeated
possibility
averments
might
fail
state
cause
action
petitioners
actually
recover
bell
bell
precursor
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
petitioners
brought
suit
federal
recover
damages
excess
agents
federal
bureau
investigation
allegedly
violating
fourth
fifth
amendment
rights
bell
question
whether
petitioners
injuries
whether
federal
courts
grant
money
recovery
damages
said
suffered
result
federal
officers
violating
fourth
fifth
amendments
open
one
decide
bivens
nonetheless
even
though
unclear
whether
remedy
held
federal
courts
jurisdiction
determine
whether
cause
action
exists
bell
incorrectly
used
understand
fundamental
distinction
arguing
cause
action
arguing
article
iii
redressability
ante
gives
much
credit
never
understood
fundamental
difference
arguing
plaintiff
complaint
allege
cause
action
law
provide
remedy
plaintiff
injury
plaintiff
injury
redressable
lake
country
estates
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
stated
absence
remedy
lack
redressability
sort
jurisdictional
issue
raises
motion
law
case
decided
still
law
today
supplemented
standing
analysis
set
forth
baker
carr
current
fascination
redressability
changed
admittedly
imperfect
state
understanding
rather
state
standing
doctrine
section
relevant
part
district
courts
shall
original
jurisdiction
civil
action
proceeding
arising
act
congress
regulating
commerce
protecting
trade
commerce
restraints
monopolies
see
also
potomac
passengers
assn
chesapeake
ohio
cadc
rev
grounds
national
railroad
passenger
national
assn
railroad
passengers
distinguished
threshold
question
respondent
claim
merits
national
railroad
passenger
insisting
article
iii
standing
question
must
answered
first
finds
logical
dilemma
whether
cause
action
exists
decided
whether
statutory
standing
id
whether
statutory
standing
decided
whether
article
iii
standing
block
community
nutrition
institute
logic
dictates
whether
cause
action
exists
decided
whether
article
iii
standing
issue
case
gwaltney
addition
answering
question
whether
statute
confers
jurisdiction
citizen
suits
wholly
past
violations
considered
whether
allegation
injury
sufficed
support
jurisdiction
fact
discussed
standing
connection
secondary
issue
gwaltney
adds
significance
omission
even
passing
reference
standing
issue
connection
principal
holding
baker
carr
boldly
distinguishes
away
fewer
five
precedents
five
cases
avoided
deciding
jurisdictional
issue
assuming
jurisdiction
existed
purpose
case
norton
mathews
example
stated
evident
whichever
disposition
undertake
effect
follows
need
decide
theoretical
question
jurisdiction
case
past
similarly
reserved
difficult
questions
jurisdiction
case
alternatively
resolved
merits
favor
party
see
secretary
navy
avrech
done
even
original
reason
granting
certiorari
resolve
jurisdictional
issue
see
augenblick
making
assumption
without
deciding
jurisdiction
cause
established
affirm
judgment
favor
secretary
see
also
philbrook
glodgett
rehn
declining
reach
subtle
complex
jurisdictional
issue
assuming
jurisdiction
existed
secretary
navy
avrech
per
curiam
ssuming
arguendo
district
jurisdiction
leaving
future
case
resolution
jurisdictional
issue
chandler
judicial
council
tenth
circuit
whether
council
action
administrative
action
reviewable
whether
reviewable
plainly
petitioner
made
case
extraordinary
relief
mandamus
prohibition
augenblick
assuming
arguendo
jurisdiction
existed
moreover
addition
five
cases
distinguishes
cases
support
notion
assume
jurisdiction
see
moor
county
alameda
whether
exists
judicial
power
hear
state
law
claims
county
short
subtle
complex
question
implications
consider
appropriate
resolve
difficult
issue
present
case
concluded
even
assuming
arguendo
existence
power
hear
claim
district
err
neese
southern
per
curiam
reverse
judgment
appeals
without
reaching
constitutional
challenge
jurisdiction
even
assuming
appellate
power
exist
appeals
erred
see
also
ellis
dyson
rehnquist
concurring
keeping
conventional
adjudication
district
first
inquired
existence
case
controversy
fault
district
disposing
case
quite
properly
regarded
time
authoritative
ground
decision
indeed
occasion
followed
essentially
practice
case
involves
choice
two
threshold
questions
intricately
interrelated
take
position
propriety
courts
assuming
jurisdiction
nonetheless
strongly
disagree
decision
reach
decide
question
especially
light
fact
benefit
briefing
argument
see
philbrook
rehnquist
declining
answer
complex
question
federal
jurisdiction
absence
substantial
aid
briefs
either
parties
avrech
without
benefit
oral
argument
unwilling
decide
difficult
jurisdictional
issue
parties
briefed
ante
noting
avrech
unwilling
decide
jurisdictional
question
without
oral
argument
emphasizing
importance
zealous
advocacy
sharpen
issues
indeed
power
construe
statute
impossible
resolve
standing
issue
without
construing
provisions
act
thus
order
determine
whether
respondent
investigation
prosecution
costs
sufficient
confer
standing
construes
epcra
authorizes
district
award
costs
litigation
prevailing
party
ante
yet
construed
cover
cost
investigation
preceded
filing
respondent
complaint
even
reasoning
respondent
alleged
redressable
injury
standing
see
ibid
two
reasons
counsel
favor
answering
statutory
question
first
first
statutory
question
divided
courts
appeals
granted
certiorari
resolve
see
pet
cert
second
meaning
statute
matter
general
national
importance
whereas
answer
constitutional
question
depends
largely
construction
allegations
particular
complaint
ante
turn
particulars
respondent
complaint
see
measures
article
iii
requirements
attempt
demonstrate
redressability
always
component
standing
doctrine
cites
decision
marye
parsons
case
neither
word
standing
word
redressability
appears
although
discussed
redressability
renne
fact
turn
issue
stated
reason
doubt
injury
alleged
redressed
relief
sought
renne
went
hold
claims
nonjusticable
respondents
demonstrated
live
controversy
ripe
resolution
federal
courts
id
distinction
significant
standing
doctrine
rooted
separation
powers
concerns
lujan
defenders
wildlife
allen
wright
see
also
infra
established
principle
entitle
private
individual
invoke
judicial
power
determine
validity
executive
legislative
action
must
show
sustained
immediately
danger
sustaining
direct
injury
result
action
ex
parte
levitt
assuming
epcra
authorizes
suits
wholly
past
violations
congress
created
legal
right
epcra
reports
filed
time
although
traditional
injury
must
sensitive
articulation
new
rights
action
clear
analogs
tradition
congress
power
define
injuries
articulate
chains
causation
give
rise
case
controversy
none
existed
lujan
defenders
wildlife
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
see
also
havens
realty
coleman
warth
seldin
another
context
specified
critical
distinction
whether
defendant
directly
indirectly
harmed
lujan
defenders
wildlife
case
involving
challenge
executive
action
stated
suit
one
challenging
legality
government
action
inaction
nature
extent
facts
must
averred
summary
judgment
stage
proved
trial
stage
order
establish
standing
depends
considerably
upon
whether
plaintiff
object
action
forgone
action
issue
ordinarily
little
question
action
inaction
caused
injury
judgment
preventing
requiring
action
redress
however
case
plaintiff
asserted
injury
arises
government
allegedly
unlawful
regulation
lack
regulation
someone
else
much
needed
circumstance
causation
redressability
ordinarily
hinge
response
regulated
regulable
third
party
government
action
perhaps
response
others
well
emphasis
original
several
scholars
attempted
trace
historical
origins
private
prosecution
without
exception
scholars
determined
notion
private
prosecutions
originated
early
common
law
england
legal
system
primarily
relied
upon
victim
victim
relatives
friends
bring
criminal
justice
according
historians
private
prosecutions
developed
england
means
facilitating
private
vengeance
bessler
public
interest
unconstitutionality
private
prosecutors
ark
rev
footnotes
omitted
american
citizens
continued
privately
prosecute
criminal
cases
many
locales
nineteenth
century
philadelphia
example
types
cases
privately
prosecuted
assault
battery
prosecutions
common
however
domestic
disputes
short
assault
also
came
thus
young
women
prosecuted
men
seduction
husbands
prosecuted
wives
paramours
adultery
wives
prosecuted
husbands
desertion
although
many
state
courts
continued
sanction
practice
private
prosecutions
without
significant
scrutiny
nineteenth
century
state
courts
outlawed
practice
footnotes
omitted
steinberg
transformation
criminal
justice
philadelphia
private
prosecution
minor
judiciary
firmly
rooted
philadelphia
colonial
past
examples
creative
american
adaptation
english
common
law
seventeenth
century
private
prosecution
fundamental
part
english
common
law
see
also
goodnow
principles
administrative
law
party
obtains
judgment
imposes
sanctions
wrongdoer
proper
presume
wrongdoer
less
likely
repeat
injurious
conduct
prompted
litigation
lessening
risk
future
harm
concrete
benefit
ironically
although
insists
standing
question
must
answered
first
relies
merits
answers
standing
question
proof
steel
company
repeatedly
violated
law
failing
file
epcra
reports
eight
years
suffice
establish
district
power
impose
sanctions
least
decide
sanction
appropriate
evidence
steel
company
ignorant
law
taken
steps
avoid
future
violations
highly
relevant
merits
question
whether
remedy
necessary
surely
deprive
district
power
decide
remedy
issue
cf
grant
defendants
told
interlocks
longer
existed
disclaimed
intention
revive
profession
suffice
make
case
moot
although
one
factors
considered
determining
appropriateness
granting
injunction
acts
action
may
commenced
subsection
section
prior
days
plaintiff
given
notice
alleged
violation
administrator
state
alleged
violation
occurs
alleged
violator
notice
paragraph
shall
given
manner
administrator
shall
prescribe
regulation
action
may
commenced
subsection
section
owner
operator
facility
administrator
commenced
diligently
pursuing
administrative
order
civil
action
enforce
requirement
concerned
impose
civil
penalty
act
respect
violation
requirement
footnotes
disposition
makes
appropriate
address
approach
taken
substantial
body
appeals
precedent
fact
justice
stevens
concurrence
takes
essentially
approach
makes
contention
discussion
excursion
unnecessary
explanation
decision
post
particularly
puzzling
justice
stevens
thinks
illogical
merits
question
given
priority
statutory
standing
question
national
railroad
passenger
statutory
standing
question
given
priority
article
iii
question
cases
discussed
post
merits
question
given
priority
article
iii
question
see
post
seems
us
illogical
many
broken
circles
appear
life
law
executive
agreements
may
displace
state
law
example
see
belmont
unilateral
presidential
action
renunciation
may
displace
executive
agreements
produce
logical
conclusion
unilateral
presidential
action
may
displace
state
law
reasons
allowing
merits
questions
decided
statutory
standing
questions
support
allowing
merits
questions
decided
article
iii
questions
national
railroad
passenger
points
merits
inquiry
statutory
standing
inquiry
often
overlap
question
whether
plaintiff
cause
action
statute
question
whether
plaintiff
cause
action
statute
closely
depending
upon
asserted
basis
lack
statutory
standing
sometimes
identical
exceedingly
artificial
draw
distinction
two
said
article
iii
requirement
remediable
injury
fact
except
regard
entirely
frivolous
claims
nothing
text
statute
relied
upon
moreover
deciding
whether
cause
action
exists
particular
statute
rather
whether
particular
plaintiff
sue
take
vast
uncharted
realms
judicial
whereas
proposition
reach
merits
question
article
iii
jurisdiction
opens
door
sorts
generalized
grievances
schlesinger
reservists
comm
stop
war
constitution
leaves
resolution
political
process
justice
stevens
adds
three
cases
list
might
support
hypothetical
jurisdiction
post
inapposite
moor
county
alameda
declined
decide
whether
federal
pendent
jurisdiction
extended
state
law
claims
new
party
agreed
district
discretionary
declination
pendent
jurisdiction
id
thus
case
decided
merits
question
jurisdictional
question
discretionary
jurisdictional
question
nondiscretionary
jurisdictional
question
similarly
ellis
dyson
authoritative
ground
decision
upon
district
relied
lieu
determining
whether
case
controversy
younger
abstention
treated
jurisdictional
finally
issue
pretermitted
neese
southern
article
iii
jurisdiction
substantive
question
whether
seventh
amendment
permits
grant
motion
new
trial
basis
excessive
jury
verdict
declined
consider
question
agreed
district
decision
deny
motion
facts
record
numerous
cases
justice
stevens
cites
strikingly
clear
becomes
concurrence
identify
single
opinion
deciding
merits
disputed
question
article
iii
jurisdiction
opinion
motivated
justice
stevens
suggests
specific
concern
citizen
suit
somehow
interferes
executive
power
care
laws
faithfully
executed
art
ii
post
courts
must
stay
within
constitutionally
prescribed
sphere
action
whether
exceeding
sphere
harm
one
two
branches
case
calls
nothing
straightforward
application
standing
jurisprudence
though
may
sometimes
impact
presidential
powers
derives
article
iii
article
ii
contrary
justice
stevens
belief
redressability
judicial
creation
past
years
post
concept
ingrained
jurisprudence
beginning
although
packaged
requirements
constitutional
case
controversy
somewhat
differently
past
era
rich
point
always
whether
plaintiff
personally
benefit
tangible
way
intervention
warth
supra
example
marye
parsons
held
bill
equity
dismissed
clear
case
damnum
absque
injuria
although
complainant
alleged
breach
contract
state
complainant
asks
relief
remedy
suit
compel
state
pay
debts
bill
framed
therefore
calls
declaration
abstract
character
courts
sit
determine
questions
law
thesi
remanded
directions
dismiss
bill
id
also
contrary
justice
stevens
unprecedented
suggestion
post
prongs
standing
inquirydoes
depend
defendant
status
governmental
entity
conceivable
reason
true
justice
stevens
claims
cases
denied
standing
lack
redressability
happened
involve
government
action
inaction
unsurprising
suits
promise
concrete
benefit
plaintiff
brought
us
determine
questions
law
thesi
marye
supra
often
inspired
psychological
smart
perceived
official
injustice
preferences
political
activists
principle
redressability
broader
application
epcra
person
may
commence
civil
action
behalf
emphasis
added
person
includes
association
see
arguable
statute
permits
respondent
vindicate
interests
organization
interests
individual
members
since
makes
difference
disposition
case
assume
without
deciding
interests
individual
members
may
basis
suit
justice
stevens
claims
redressability
found
lacking
prior
cases
relief
required
action
party
post
even
prove
redressability
lacking
relief
depends
actions
third
party
event
justice
stevens
overlooked
decisions
destroy
premise
see
lyons
littleton
also
seems
suggest
redressability
always
exists
defendant
directly
injured
plaintiff
redressability
requirement
entirely
superfluous
since
causation
requirement
asks
whether
injury
fairly
trace
able
challenged
action
defendant
th
result
independent
action
third
party
simon
eastern
ky
welfare
rights
organization
section
reads
issuing
final
order
action
brought
pursuant
section
may
award
costs
litigation
including
reasonable
attorney
expert
witness
fees
prevailing
party
substantially
prevailing
party
whenever
determines
award
appropriate
justice
stevens
contends
post
argument
involves
us
construction
statute
thus
belies
insistence
jurisdictional
issues
resolved
first
involves
us
construction
statute
extent
rejecting
frivolous
contention
costs
incurred
respondent
purposes
preparation
litigation
hence
sufficient
support
article
iii
standing
nonetheless
costs
litigation
statute
described
earlier
cases
make
clear
frivolous
claims
jurisdictional
defect
see
supra