Landmark Environmental Court Cases

Why This Matters

Environmental law doesn't exist in a vacuum—it's built case by case through judicial decisions that define the boundaries of federal power, determine who can bring lawsuits, and establish how far environmental protections actually reach. When you study these landmark cases, you're learning the legal architecture that supports every major environmental statute, from the Clean Air Act to the Endangered Species Act. These rulings determine whether agencies can act, whether citizens can challenge decisions, and whether species or ecosystems receive meaningful protection.

You're being tested on more than case names and dates. The AP exam expects you to understand standing doctrine, agency deference, federalism, and the tension between economic development and environmental protection. Don't just memorize which side won—know what legal principle each case established and how that principle shapes environmental governance today. When an FRQ asks about citizen enforcement or federal regulatory authority, these cases are your evidence.

---

Standing Doctrine: Who Gets to Sue?

One of the most fundamental questions in environmental law is who has the legal right to bring a case to court. These cases define the boundaries of standing—the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate sufficient connection to the harm they're challenging.

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

• Environmental organizations cannot sue solely as advocates—the Court ruled that the Sierra Club lacked standing because it failed to claim its members would be personally affected by the proposed development
• Individual injury requirement established that plaintiffs must demonstrate concrete, particularized harm rather than general interest in environmental protection
• Opened the door for organizational standing by implying that groups could sue if they showed members would suffer direct injury—a strategy environmental groups quickly adopted

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

• Three-part standing test solidified—plaintiffs must prove injury in fact, causation, and redressability to access federal courts
• "Someday intentions" insufficient for standing; wildlife researchers who planned to return to affected habitats couldn't demonstrate imminent harm
• Narrowed citizen suit provisions under the Endangered Species Act, making it harder to challenge federal actions affecting species abroad

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

• States receive "special solicitude" in standing analysis—Massachusetts could sue because it owned coastal land threatened by climate change
• Greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, forcing EPA to regulate or provide scientific justification for refusal
• Landmark climate ruling that opened federal courts to climate litigation and affirmed states' role in pushing federal environmental action

---

Agency Authority and Deference

How much power do agencies like the EPA have to interpret environmental statutes? These cases establish the legal framework for administrative discretion and determine when courts will second-guess agency decisions.

Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC (1984)

• "Chevron deference" established—courts must defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer
• Two-step test created: first, determine if Congress spoke directly to the issue; if not, determine if the agency's interpretation is permissible
• Empowered EPA and other agencies to adapt regulations to changing circumstances without new legislation—foundational for modern environmental regulation

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

• "Hard look" doctrine introduced—courts must review whether agencies genuinely considered all relevant factors before making decisions
• Procedural requirements matter: the Department of Transportation failed to adequately explain why no "feasible alternatives" existed to building a highway through a public park
• Strengthened judicial oversight of agency decisions, ensuring environmental review isn't just a rubber stamp

---

Endangered Species Protection

The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest environmental laws ever passed, but its reach has been tested repeatedly. These cases define how far species protection extends when it conflicts with development.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)

• ESA trumps economics—the Supreme Court halted a nearly-completed $$100+ million dam to protect the snail darter, a three-inch fish
• "Plain meaning" interpretation applied; Congress's language left no room for balancing species protection against project costs
• Prompted congressional response: the "God Squad" exemption process was created, allowing cabinet-level review of conflicts between species and development

---

Interstate Pollution and Federal Jurisdiction

Environmental problems don't respect state boundaries. These cases address federalism questions—when can one state hold another accountable, and how far does federal jurisdiction extend?

Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. (1907)

• First major interstate pollution case—Georgia successfully sued to stop sulfur dioxide emissions from Tennessee smelters destroying crops and forests across the border
• State sovereignty doctrine applied: states have quasi-sovereign interests in protecting their air, water, and land from out-of-state harm
• Foundation for federal air pollution law—demonstrated that state-by-state litigation was inefficient, building the case for national standards

Rapanos v. United States (2006)

• "Waters of the United States" left undefined—a fractured Court produced no majority opinion on Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands
• Kennedy's "significant nexus" test became the working standard: wetlands must have a substantial connection to navigable waters to fall under federal protection
• Created regulatory uncertainty that persists today, with ongoing disputes over which wetlands and streams qualify for federal protection

United States v. Reserve Mining Co. (1974)

• Precautionary approach applied—court ordered mining company to stop dumping asbestos-laden tailings into Lake Superior despite scientific uncertainty about health risks
• Federal enforcement role affirmed in protecting water quality from industrial pollution affecting multiple states
• Public health connection established between environmental contamination and human welfare, strengthening arguments for strict pollution controls

---

Public Participation and Environmental Review

Can ordinary citizens challenge government decisions that affect the environment? These cases established the procedural rights that allow public involvement in environmental governance.

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC (1965)

• Citizens gained standing to challenge federal projects—conservation groups could sue the Federal Power Commission over a proposed Hudson River power plant
• Aesthetic and ecological values recognized as legitimate interests worthy of legal protection, not just economic concerns
• Catalyst for NEPA: this case demonstrated the need for systematic environmental review, helping inspire the National Environmental Policy Act four years later

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two cases both address standing requirements but reach different conclusions about who can sue—and what explains the difference between them?

2. If an FRQ asks you to explain how federal agencies gain authority to interpret environmental statutes, which case provides the foundational doctrine, and what is the two-step test it established?

3. Compare TVA v. Hill and Rapanos v. United States: one strengthened environmental protection while the other created uncertainty. What legal principles distinguish their outcomes?

4. A question asks about the historical development of interstate pollution control. Which early case demonstrated the need for federal standards, and what legal theory did it rely on?

5. How do Scenic Hudson and Overton Park together establish the principle that federal agencies must consider environmental impacts and that citizens can challenge their failure to do so?