Environmental Litigation Standing After Massachusetts v. EPA: Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA
Class Year
2011
Document Type
Feature
Publication Date
Fall 2009
Abstract
As a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, reduced standing requirements have enabled litigators to pursue environmental claims and compel U.S. Federal agencies to enforce existing statutes. Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency is predicated upon these reduced standing requirements. On May 14, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed a complaint in the Western District of Washington against the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) based on EPA’s failure to list and regulate damage caused to Washington’s coastal waters by ocean acidification. In the suit, the CBD alleged that the EPA’s approval of Washington’s list of impaired waters, which only included inland waters and did not include the adversely affected coastal ocean areas, harmed the right of its members to enjoy the marine animals in the area. As a result of the EPA’s action, CBD also claimed that its members suffered procedural and informational injury.
Recommended Citation
Hosaido, Andy. “Environmental Litigation Standing After Massachusetts v. EPA: Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA.” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall 2009, 30, 82.