Environmental Justice Before U.S. Courts

Colangelo, Sara A.; André, Abigail E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_3

Sara A. Colangelo⁸ &
Abigail E. André⁹

158 Accesses

Abstract

The history of environmental justice litigation in federal, state, and administrative courts illustrates how difficult it is to remedy intersectional harm using a single legal tool. In the United States, there is no federal “environmental justice law” that litigants can wield in court. The movement has instead attempted to harness constitutional and civil rights claims, environmental statutes, and common law to address the disproportionate environmental harm suffered by communities of color and under-resourced communities. However, the architects of those laws did not design them to combat environmental injustice, and litigation thereunder rarely provides communities with complete redress. While advocates have pursued multi-faceted approaches with some success, the arc of environmental justice litigation highlights the need for an expansion of existing law or new approaches to address the entrenched harms that characterize environmental racism and injustice.

This Chapter introduces readers to environmental justice and explains why litigation has been a lever of limited utility to advance the movement’s goals in the last several decades. It surveys the historical application of different types of laws that advocates have employed in cases seeking environmental justice. The Chapter also highlights the non-litigation value lawsuits can provide from the perspective of movement organizing strategies. Finally, it identifies recent successful efforts as well as new setbacks and explores how novel legal developments could reshape the horizon of environmental justice litigation.

The authors thank Scott Badenoch, Amy Laura Cahn, and Sheila Foster for insightful feedback on early drafts of this chapter, as well as Emma Schwartz (Georgetown J.D. 2023) and Margaret McCallister (Georgetown J.D. 2024) for excellent research assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Bullard et al. (2007), p. xi. See, e.g., Spiller et al. (2021), pp. 127,004-3 to 127,004-11; Mikati et al. (2018), p. 480.
2.
This Chapter addresses the lived experience of others. Accordingly, the authors intend our nomenclature to be as circumstance-specific as possible related to individuals with non-white racial identities, acknowledging there are preferences among terminology including “communities of color.” Where source material uses the term “minority,” the reader may assume it refers to racial minorities. Finally, we do not use the term “environmental justice communities” to avoid the implication that communities with environmental justice concerns are homogenous.
3.
Cole and Foster (2000), pp. 54–55.
4.
Id.
5.
See, e.g., Mohai and Saha (2015), p. 7 (examining disparities in the location of pollution sources by race and economic status); Taylor (2014) (same).
6.
EPA defines cumulative impacts as “the total burden – positive, neutral, or negative – from chemical and nonchemical stressors and their interactions that affect the health, well-being, and quality of life of an individual, community, or population….” U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, EPA 600/R-22/014a, Cumulative Impacts: Recommendations for EPA’s Office of Research and Development (2022).
7.
For a summary of the complex factors contributing to environmental injustice, see, e.g., Rothstein (2017); Foster (2004), p. 10.
8.
Scholars cite “market-based forces that make [areas that] are already heavily industrial particularly appealing for the siting of new [locally unwanted land uses], as well as entrenched political and economic disempowerment of …affected communities.” Ball (2006), p. 871. See also Foster (2017), pp. 136–137 (collecting sources on land use and zoning influences on environmental disparity, and noting counter arguments). Professor Vicki Been has been a consistent and prominent contributor to the scholarship on siting of undesireable land uses and environmental justice. See, e.g., Vicki Been, Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or Market Dynamics?, 103 YALE L.J. 1383 (1994).
9.
Baker (2019), p. 6. Baker details scholarship suggesting that “[f]ossil fuels… led to ‘the westward expansion, growth of urban centers, rise of monopoly capitalism, concentration of wealth, migration and immigration of working-class people and people of color, segregation [and] impoverishment.’” Id. (citing Energy Democracy: Advancing Equity in Clean Energy Solutions 8 (Denise Fairchild & Al Weinrub eds., 2017)).
10.
See, e.g., Kuehn (1994), p. 625.
11.
See, e.g., Magesh et al. (2021); Chen et al. (2022), p. 440.
12.
Baker (2019), p. 14.
13.
See, e.g., Bryant (1995), pp. 5–6.
14.
Bullard (2007), p. viii.
15.
See, e.g., id. at 1–5.
16.
Principles of Environmental Justice, United Church of Christ, https://www.ucc.org/what-we-do/justice-local-church-ministries/justice/faithful-action-ministries/environmental-justice/principles_of_environmental_justice/ (last visited Jan. 24, 2023).
17.
Environmental Justice, EPA.gov, https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice (last visited Jan. 24, 2023).
18.
Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Justice (David M. Konisky ed. 2015).
19.
Harrisburg Coal. Against Ruining the Env’t v. Volpe, 330 F. Supp. 918, 926 (M.D. Pa. 1971) (denying claims).
20.
Env’t Def. Fund, Inc. v. Hardin, 428 F.2d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1970) sub. history omitted.
21.
482 F. Supp. 673 (S.D. Tex. 1979).
22.
Id. at 678–679.
23.
Id.
24.
See Bullard (2000), p. 53.
25.
Cole (1994), pp. 525–526, 541–542 [hereinafter Environmental Justice Litigation].
26.
Id.
27.
Henderson et al. (2021), p. 17.
28.
Cole (1994), p. 525; see also Drury and Chu (1994/1995), p. 52.
29.
See, e.g., Cole (1995), pp. 702–704 (arguing for lawyers to empower and provide legal expertise to attack environmental injustice before it begins rather than through litigation, which removes the matter from the hands of the community).
30.
Paul Egan, Federal Judge Gives Final Approval to $626.25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis, Detroit Free Press (Nov. 10, 2021), https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2021/11/10/federal-judge-approves-settlement-flint-lead-poisoning-case/5556131001/.
31.
Cole (1994), p. 524.
32.
Daly (2002), p. 18.
33.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (applies to states); U.S. Const. amend V (applies to the federal government); see, e.g., Cole (1994), p. 538.
34.
Cole (1994), p. 539; see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976) (“[A] law … is [not] invalid under the Equal Protection Clause simply because it may affect a greater proportion of one race than another.”).
35.
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264–66 (1977). Discriminatory intent exists when someone “treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 388 n.15 (1977). Discriminatory impact more broadly includes “practices that are facially neutral … [yet] in fact fall more harshly on one group than another….” Id.
36.
Foster (2017), p. 136.
37.
See, e.g., Northern (1997), p. 538.
38.
768 F. Supp. 1144 (E.D. Va. 1991).
39.
Id. at 1148–1149.
40.
Id. at 1149–1150.
41.
See, e.g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
42.
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
43.
Ammons v. Dade City, Fla., 594 F. Supp. 1274 (M.D. Fla. 1984), aff’d, 783 F. 2d 982 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, 437 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971).
44.
See, e.g., Southend Neighborhood Improvement Ass’n v. Cnty. of St. Clair, 743 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1984). Discriminatory municipal practices that are not closely linked with housing are not covered under Title VIII. See Cox v. City of Dallas, 430 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).
45.
Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266.
46.
706 F. Supp. 880 (M.D. Ga.), aff’d sub nom., 888 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir. 1989), sub. history omitted.
47.
The plaintiffs attempted to satisfy factors articulated in Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 269–270.
48.
706 F. Supp. at 885.
49.
Id. at 887.
50.
Cole (1994), p. 530. Scholars are also exploring whether Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act could provide redress for environmental injustice, particularly where cumulative exposures have resulted in serious medical conditions and disability. See e.g., Wilson (2022), p. 1722. The ADA has no intent requirement and imposes an affirmative duty on states and local governments not to discriminate. Id. at 1738. It remains unclear whether a government’s “decision to subject people with disabilities to environmental conditions that exacerbate their health conditions constitutes” a violation of the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement, “but courts have suggested that the answer could be yes.” Id. at 1743.
51.
42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1988).
52.
Mank (2008), p. 23; Outka (2005), p. 223.
53.
Cole (1994), p. 530.
54.
Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 463 U.S. 582, 591–604 (2d Cir. 1980).
55.
42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (1994); Lado (2019), p. 281; Outka (2005), p. 224.
56.
42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (1994).
57.
See Cole (1994), p. 532 (summarizing agency regulations).
58.
See also S. Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 274 F.3d 771 (3d Cir. 2001); N. Carolina Dep’t of Transp. v. Crest St. Cmty. Council, Inc., 479 U.S. 6 (1986).
59.
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
60.
Id. at 295 & n.1 (Stevens, J. dissenting).
61.
The Court did not explicitly invalidate the regulations because they were not challenged by the petitioners, but the ruling had that effect. Id. at 281–282.
62.
See, e.g., Dana and Tuerkheimer (2017), p. 97 (deeming EPA’s approach to Title VI “ineffectual”).
63.
Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n v. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) (criticizing the EPA for “fail[ing] to process a single complaint … in accordance with its regulatory deadlines.”); Californians for Renewable Energy v. EPA, No. 4:15-CV-03292, 2018 WL 158211 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015) (same); see also Lado (2019), p. 296.
64.
See Lado (2019), p. 297; Dana and Tuerkheimer (2017), p. 97.
65.
Lado (2019), p. 319.
66.
See, e.g., Civil Rights Case Decisions, Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, (Feb. 1, 2023), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/title_vi/case_decisions.cfm; File a Complaint, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Feb. 1, 2023), https://www.hud.gov/fairhousing/fileacomplaint%20.
67.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1974).
68.
See S. Camden, 274 F.3d at 790; Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340–31 (1997) (limiting what constitutes a “federal right” as those clearly defined by statute).
69.
42 U.S.C. § 3601 (1976); Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 521 (2015).
70.
See Lazarus (1992), p. 840.
71.
See, e.g., 576 U.S. at 545–46; United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1184–85 (8th Cir. 1974).
72.
42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (1970).
73.
42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (1970).
74.
Town of Huntington, N.Y. v. Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P., 488 U.S. 15, 16–18 (1988) (striking down zoning laws forbidding multifamily unit construction); Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Center v. St. Bernard Par., 641 F.Supp.2d 563, 569, 577–578 (E.D. La. 2009) (invalidating zoning law that restricted rental to blood relatives in predominantly white neighborhood).
75.
See United States v. City of Parma, 494 F. Supp. 1049, 1055 (N.D. Ohio 1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 926 (1982); see also Been (1994), pp. 1403–1404.
76.
Cole (1994), p. 535.
77.
See, e.g., 743 F.2d at 1210; see also Rajotte, see footnote 46, at 179.
78.
See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 578 (2009); City of Parma, 494 F. Supp. at 1055; Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. at 533.
79.
Ricci, 557 U.S. at 578.
80.
Cole (1994), p. 525 (observing that “we as a movement are not winning civil rights cases”).
81.
See, e.g., Cole (1994), p. 541. For an example of litigation successfully producing pressure to settle environmental justice claims, see Holt v. Scovill, Inc., No. 3:07- CV-00727 (M.D. Tenn. 2008), aff’d sub nom. Holt v. City of Dickson, 2011 WL 134249 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2011). In Holt, a Black family sued government officials and private companies for polluting its well water with carcinogenic chemicals. Over the course of fifteen years, the defendants reassured the Holts that their water was safe to drink while simultaneously warning their white neighbors of possible contamination. Ultimately, every member of the Holt family fell seriously ill. After filing a complaint and successfully defending several motions to dismiss, the Holts settled their case for more than two million dollars. See Legal Defense Fund, Case: Holt v. Scovill, Economic Justice, https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/holt-v-scovill/) (last visited Jan. 23, 2023).
82.
Yang (2002), p. 14.
83.
See e.g., CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387 (2000); NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4347 (1994); CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q (1994). Additionally, when major environmental statutes were written in the 1970s, lawmakers held a conventional view of the environment as wilderness rather than the place where we live. See Biermann (2021), p. 61; see generally The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit: The Washington Court on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., October 24–27, 1991: Proceedings xiii (Charles Lee ed., 1991).
84.
See, e.g., TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2619 (1994); CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1910 (2000); CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (1994); RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (1994); SWDA, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8 (1994).
85.
Guana (1995), p. 4. The vast majority of environmental enforcement takes place at the state and administrative levels. See, e.g., Heisler (2011), p. 4.
86.
Guana (1995), p. 40.
87.
Id.
88.
See, e.g., CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1910 (2000); CAA 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (1994); RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (1994). Note that some environmental statutes do not contain citizen suit provisions.
89.
See Friends of Buckingham v. Virginia Air Pollution Control Bd., 947 F.3d 68 (4th Cir. 2020).
90.
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–9675 (1994); 40 CFR §§ 300–311 (2003); see also Office of Land and Emergency Management, EPA 502/P-21/001, EJ Action Plan: Building Up Environmental Justice in EPA’s Land Protection and Cleanup Program (2022).
91.
Goeke v. Nat’l Farms, Inc., 512 N.W.2d 626 (Neb. 1994).
92.
Guana (1995), p. 41.
93.
See, e.g., Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal v. Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Comm’n, 127 S.W.3d 509, 515 (Ark. 2003) (challenging the issuance of a permit for a chemical weapons incinerator); Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Com., Dep’t of Env’t Res., 668 A.2d 110 (Pa. 1995) (challenging a permit for the construction and operation of an infectious waste sterilization facility).
94.
Citizens for a Better Env’t v. Costle, 515 F. Supp. 264, 270–271 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (requiring EPA to promulgate regulations under the Clean Air Act); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685, 686 (D.D.C. 1975) (holding that EPA has a duty to adopt a definition of “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act).
95.
Costle, 515 F. Supp. 271 (finding that EPA has a duty to determine whether state SIPs comply with the Clean Air Act).
96.
See generally, Ferris (1994), pp. 678–679.
97.
Guana (1995), p. 43.
98.
See, e.g., CERCLA § 9659(d)(1) (1988) (requiring 60-day notice for CERCLA enforcement suits); Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 31 (1989) (holding that notice requirements should be strictly enforced).
99.
Significant caselaw exists surrounding what constitutes “diligent” prosecution. Compare N. & S. Rivers Watershed Ass’n v. Scituate, 949 F.2d 552, 558 (1st Cir. 1991) (precluding a citizen suit because agency proceedings had begun), with Friends of the Earth v. Consol. Rail Corp., 768 F.2d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 1985) (requiring a preexisting government-filed judicial proceedings to preclude a citizen suit).
100.
Compare N. & S. Rivers, 949 F.2d at 558 (holding that an administrative compliance action bars a citizen suit), with Consol. Rail Corp., 768 F.2d at 62 (holding that an administrative consent decree does not preclude suit).
101.
For example, CERLCA citizen suits cannot proceed before the government has identified potentially responsible parties and initiated cleanup. See generally Gaba and Kelly (1990), p. 929; see 42 U.S.C. § 9607.
102.
See, e.g., Env’t Def. Fund v. Thomas, 870 F.2d 892, 896–900 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom. Ala. Power Co. v. Env’t Def. Fund, 493 U.S. 991 (1989) (commenting on the nondiscretionary duty to make some decision regarding revision of sulfur dioxide NAAQS).
103.
See, e.g., Wisconsin’s Env’t Decade v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 395 F. Supp. 313, 323 (W.D. Wis. 1975) (holding that EPA’s identification of violations is mandatory).
104.
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) (1988); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) (1988 & Supp. V 1993); RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) (1988); see also Friends of the Earth v. Archer Daniel Midland Co., 780 F. Supp. 95, 101–02 (N.D.N.Y. 1992) (refusing to approve CWA citizen suit settlement including money payments to private environmental groups).
105.
See, e.g., Gwatlney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 64 (1987) (holding that NPDES does not permit citizen suits for “wholly past violations”).
106.
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); see also TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021).
107.
Guana (1995), p. 72.
108.
Id. at 46, n. 159.
109.
Outka (2005), p. 235.
110.
See, e.g., FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136 (2000); CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365, 1344(o), 1342(j) (2004); NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(c), 4368 (1994); RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6974.
111.
42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). Note that all states have their own versions of NEPA, which generally mirror the federal standards. See, e.g., California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002.
112.
Council on Env’t Quality, A Citizen’s Guide to NEPA: Having your Voice Heard 4 (2021).
113.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.18 (2019).
114.
40 CFR §1508.1(d) (2019).
115.
See, e.g., Fleischman et al. (2020), p. 403 (finding that, of 33,976 decisions made by the U.S. Forest Service between 2005 and 2018, 82.3% fell under categorical exclusions, 15.8% received EAs, and for only 1.9% were EISs written).
116.
40 C.F.R. § 1501.3 (2019).
117.
40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(c)(2) (2019).
118.
40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 (2019).
119.
40 C.F.R. § 1502.1–1502.25 (2019).
120.
Id.
121.
40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(e) (2019).
122.
See 40 CFR §1502 (2019).
123.
Outka (2005), p. 235.
124.
See, e.g., Center for Cmty. Action & Env’t Just. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 18 F.4th 592, 597–98 (9th Cir. 2021) (challenging FAA’s decision to forgo an EIS before constructing large air cargo facility); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 349 F.3d 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003) (challenging agency’s failure to discuss opposing views in EIS); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Andrus, 440 F. Supp. 1245, 1253 (D.D.C. 1977) (finding cursory admission of impacts insufficient); Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rowlette, 714 F.3d 402, 411 (6th Cir. 2013) (finding that past actions and impacts must be considered); Am. Marine Rail, LLC, 2000 WL 1299571 (N.Y. Dep’t of Env’t Conservation) (Aug. 25, 2000) (requiring an EIS for permitting a solid waste transfer program).
125.
NEPA provides no independent right of action, these suits are brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C § 706(2)(A) (2000).
126.
205 F. Supp. 3d 4, 13 (D.D.C. 2016); see also Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 255 F. Supp. 3d 101, 140 (D.D.C. 2017); Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
127.
See Fredericks et al. (2019), p. 569.
128.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
129.
See, e.g., State of Cal. v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 773 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding that be “good faith” response to comments); Pyramid Co. of Watertown v. Plan. Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 A.D.3d 1312, 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) (EIS inadequate for failing to include supporting data in response to comment about non-environmental impacts).
130.
22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20,537 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Dec. 30, 1991).
131.
Id.
132.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.14 (2019); see also One Thousand Friends of Iowa v. Mineta, 250 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1072 (S.D. Iowa 2002) (finding that environmental justice “does not alone give rise to judicial review by this or any other court.”).
133.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.14 (2019); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(1) (2020); Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emp. v. Rumsfeld, 418 F. Supp. 1302, 1306 (E.D. Pa. 1976) (“[W]hen a federal action does have a significant environmental impact, social and economic impacts must also be considered….”); see, e.g., Hammond v. Norton, 370 F. Supp. 2d 226, 243 (D.D.C. 2005) (defining interrelatedness under NEPA); Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992) (defining foreseeability under NEPA).
134.
Pyramid Co. of Watertown v. Plan. Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 A.D.3d 1312, 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005).
135.
Hanly v. Mitchell, 460 F.2d 640, 647 (2d Cir. 1972).
136.
See, e.g., Protect Our Cmty. Found. v. LaCounte, 939 F.3d 1029, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2019).
137.
See, e.g., Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148, 1157 (Wash. 1980).
138.
But see infra Sect. 3.3. Under traditional cumulative impact analysis, agencies were required to consider the addition of its project to the “aggregate effects of past actions” in the same area. Memorandum from James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality on Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis to Heads of Federal Agencies (June 24, 2005), http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/guidance-consideration-past-actions-cumulative-effects-analysis.
139.
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order No. 12, 898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994), amended by Exec. Order No. 12,948, 60 Fed. Reg. 6381 (Jan. 30, 1995); see also Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Exec. Order No. 14,008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619, 7629–30 (Jan. 27, 2021) (amending E.O. 12,898 to create a “White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council”).
140.
Id. § 1-101; see also Villa (2022), p. 163.
141.
See Hausrath v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 491 F. Supp. 3d 770, 797 (D. Idaho 2020) (concluding agency’s consideration of environmental justice impacts “too cursory.”).
142.
Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 541 (8th Cir. 2003).
143.
Council on Env’t Quality, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act 9 (1997) [hereinafter CEQ Guidance].
144.
Id. at 10.
145.
See, e.g., Communities Against Runway Expansion, Inc. v. FAA, 355 F.3d 678, 689–90 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (upholding the sufficiency of agency’s demographic analysis even though the size of the area considered diluted potential impacts on communities of color closest to the project); In re Annova LNG Common Infrastructure, LLC, 2020 WL 865088, at *10 (FERC Feb. 21, 2020) (upholding facility’s citing where “all project-affected populations are minority or low-income populations, or both” over challenge under NEPA).
146.
Outka (2005), p. 237.
147.
Outka (2005), p. 233.
148.
See Latham et al. (2011), p. 737.
149.
Schwartz (2010), pp. 1–2.
150.
Northern (1997), p. 492.
151.
See Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 330 (2d Cir. 2009), rev’d, 564 U.S. 410 (2011).
152.
See Latham et al. (2011), p. 739.
153.
See, e.g., Northern (1997), pp. 557–577 (suggesting the expansion of environmental torts to include battery); Brennan (1993), pp. 44–48 (considering the development of toxic torts); but see Latham et al. (2011), p. 746 (discussing the limitations of tort in the environmental context).
154.
Latham et al. (2011), pp. 750–751.
155.
See e.g., Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co., 965 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2020).
156.
Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 821B, 821D (1979).
157.
See e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822 cmt. a (1979) (defining types of private nuisance); Baptiste, 965 F.3d at 222–24 (successful environmental justice suit against landfill operator for air pollution, contaminants, and odor); Scribner v. Summers, 84 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1996) (barium leak from adjacent property); Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 874 (N.Y. 1970) (airborne cement dust); Moon v. N. Idaho Farmers Ass’n, 96 P.3d 637, 640 (Idaho 2004) (grass smoke). See also Rendleman (2018), p. 1859.
158.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B (1979); Northern (1997), p. 551 (noting that some states consider pollution of public waters or open air a public nuisance).
159.
State v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 459 N.Y.S.2d 971, 976 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983) (citations omitted), aff’d as modified, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984).
160.
Baptiste, 965 F.3d at 224 (finding petitioners allegations were sufficient to state claims for nuisance).
161.
Patrick Rocchio, MOM files lawsuit against HP businesses, Bronx Times (July 18, 2008), https://www.bxtimes.com/mom-files-lawsuit-against-hp-businesses/.
162.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826 (1979). There are exceptions to this rule if the injury suffered is unusually serious and damages will not bankrupt the offending company. Id. at § 827.
163.
See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 828 a-c (1979).
164.
Todd (2020), p. 181.
165.
Latham (2011), p. 754.
166.
Latham (2011), pp. 753–754.
167.
See, e.g., Roberts et al. (2022); Bullard (2021), p. 243.
168.
See, e.g., Sprainer (2022), p. 123; Politico, An ‘urgent’ crisis: City’s study of environmental inequities gains new momentum amid Covid, https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2021/11/08/an-urgent-crisis-citys-study-of-environmental-inequities-gains-new-momentum-amid-covid-1392421 (11/08/21).
169.
Press Release, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Finalizes Environmental Action Plan for Land Protection Cleanup Programs (Sept. 30, 2022) (available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-environmental-justice-action-plan-land-protection-and-cleanup-programs) (detailing the new Office of Land and Emergency Management EJ Action Plan and situating it within the broader environmental justice efforts across EPA and DOJ in response to EO’s 13,985 and 14,008, including the Biden administration’s Justice40 Initiative).
170.
Office of General Counsel, No. 360R22001, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice (2022), https://www.epa.gov/ogc/epa-legal-tools-advance-environmental-justice.
171.
Office of General Counsel, No. 360R22002, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice: Cumulative Impacts Addendum (2023), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/bh508-Cumulative%20Impacts%20Addendum%20Final%202022-11-28.pdf.
172.
Press Release, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Launches New National Office Dedicated to Advancing Environmental Justice and Civil Rights (Sept. 24, 2022) (available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-new-national-office-dedicated-advancing-environmental-justice-and-civil).
173.
The necessity of overhaul to the Title VI program is clear from Section II herein, and is well-detailed in scholarship. See, e.g., Lado (2019), p. 281; see also Glenn (2017), p. 45.
174.
See Press Release, Department of Justice, Justice Department Announces Environmental Justice Investigation into Alabama Department of Public Health and Lowndes County Health Department (Nov. 9, 2021) (available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-environmental-justice-investigation-alabama-department-public) To understand the scale of the health crises fueled by the wastewater sanitation issues in Alabama, see Flowers (2020).
175.
Letter from Lilian S. Dorka, Deputy Assistant Administrator for External Civil Rights, Environmental Protection Agency to Dr. Chuck Carr Brown, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality & Dr. Courtney N. Phillips, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health (October 12, 2022) (available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/2022%2010%2012%20Final%20Letter%20LDEQ%20LDH%2001R-22-R6%2C%2002R-22-R6%2C%2004R-22-R6.pdf).
176.
Office of General Counsel, Interim Environmental Justice and Civil Rights in Permitting Frequently Asked Questions at 14–15 (2022).
177.
Memorandum from the Associate Att’y Gen. to Heads of Dep’t Components & U.S. Att’ys (May 5, 2022) (available at https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2022/05/05/02._asg_strategy_memorandum.pdf) [hereinafter Environmental Justice Enforcement Strategy Memo]. See also Exec. Order No. 14,008 § 222(c)(ii), 86 Fed. Reg. 7,619, 7,631 (Jan. 27, 2021).
178.
Environmental Justice Enforcement Strategy Memo at 2.
179.
Id. at 5. See also Colangelo (2021), p. 4. Citizen enforcement suits have also secured these types of relief. See, e.g., Holding Polluters Accountable, Conservation Law Foundation (2022) https://www.clf.org/strategies/environmental-enforcement/ (describing effort to incorporate SEPs into enforcement); United States v. DTE Energy Co., 845 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied 138 S.Ct 555 (2017).
180.
Env’t Protection Agency, Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 2015 Update 1 (2015).
181.
Memorandum from Susan Shinkman, Director, Office of Civil Enforcement to Regional Counsels, Environmental Protection Agency (Nov. 14, 2012) (available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/2ndeditionsecuringmitigationemo.pdf).
182.
Id.
183.
Environmental Justice Enforcement Strategy Memo at 4–5.
184.
Id. at 6–7.
185.
See, e.g., Colangelo (2022), pp. 356–360 (urging more significant involvement of communities in government enforcement matters and providing public engagement strategies). See generally Hoffer (2003), pp. 1000–1002 (describing the benefits of public participation in environmental decision-making).
186.
87 Fed. Reg. 23453 (Apr. 20, 2022); The White House, CEQ Restores Three Key Community Safeguards during Federal Environmental Reviews, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/04/19/ceq-restores-three-key-community-safeguards-during-federal-environmental-reviews/ (Apr. 19, 2022).
187.
Id.
188.
See, e.g., Press Release, State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, DEP File 12 New Environmental Justice Lawsuits Targeting Polluters in New Jerseys Lower-Income and Minority Communities (August 27, 2020) (available at https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-dep-file-12-new-aeoeenvironmental-justiceae%C2%9D-lawsuits-targeting-polluters-in-new-jerseys-lower-income-and-minority-communities/) (“[I]n the last year, New Jersey filed 12 lawsuits targeting polluters across New Jersey whose actions threaten the health and safety of residents in minority and lower-income communities….”)
189.
See, e.g., Colorado (HB19-1266, 2021); Washington (SB 5141, HEAL Act 2022); Vermont (S.148, 2022); Dylan Bruce, ANALYSIS: State Laws are Codifying Environmental Justice, Bloomberg Law (March 9, 2021), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-state-laws-are-codifying-environmental-justice. States with relevant Executive Orders include Wisconsin (E.O. 161, 2022) and North Carolina (E.O. 271, 2022).
190.
Integral Consulting, Compendium of State Regulatory Activities on Environmental Justice (2021), Integral-State-EJ-Compendium.pdf.
191.
Environmental justice organizations view climate justice as “addressing the climate crisis in a just and equitable way,” typically focusing on a just transition to a low carbon economy and considering the needs of communities on the frontlines of greenhouse gas producing industry. Climate Justice Working Groups, WeAct for Environmental Justice (2023), weact.org/home-3-2-2-2/getinvolved/mermership/cjwg/.
192.
See A.B. 2212, 219th Leg. (N.J. 2020); S.B. 232, 219th Leg. (N.J. 2020).
193.
See id. Importantly, the law also requires public hearings throughout the permitting assessment process.
194.
E.g., Michael P. Norton, DEP official cites ‘societal context’ in East Springfield biomass plant ruling, WBUR Local Coverage (Dec. 1, 2022), https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/12/01/palmer-renewable-energy-permit-revoked-upheld; Renata Stiehl, NYS DEC Denies Air Permit Renewal for Greenridge Generation, WENY News (June 30, 2022), https://www.weny.com/story/46797720/nys-dec-denies-air-permit-renewal-for-greenidge-generation. California, Rhode Island, and Illinois are also currently considering cumulative impacts legislation as additions to their current environmental justice efforts. See A.B. 649, Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2022); S.B. 2087, Reg. Sess. (R.I. 2022); H.B. 3090, 102nd Gen. Assemb. (Ill. 2022).
195.
See Amicus Brief for Petitioners, Friends of Buckingham v. Virginia Air Pollution Control Bd., 947 F.3d 68 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-1152), 2019 WL 2462720, at 9–18.
196.
Va. Code Ann. § 67-102(A)(8).
197.
Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-1307(E).
198.
Friends of Buckingham, at 4.
199.
Id. at 38.
200.
Id. at 41.
201.
Id. at 34.
202.
Id. at 92. But see Town of Weymouth v. Mass. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 961 F.3d 34, 54–55 (1st Cir. 2020) (interpreting the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s environmental justice analysis as going beyond what was required by the now-replaced state Environmental Justice Policy over challenge from disadvantaged community).
203.
Friends of Buckingham, 86, 90–91.
204.
States with explicit environmental constitutional protections include New York (N.Y. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 19.), Pennsylvania (P.A. Const., Art 1, Sec. 27), Montana (M.T. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 3), and Hawaii (H.I. Const., Art. XI, Sec. 9).
205.
See also Rise St. James v. La. Dep’t of Evn’t Quality, No. C-694029 (La. Dist. Ct. Dec. 14, 2020), overruled Rise St. James v. La. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, No. 2021 CW 0032, 2021 CW 0037 (consolidated) (La. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2021).
206.
Id.
207.
The facility was previously the subject of numerous complaints and was already under an Administrative Consent Order with EPA by 2019. Still, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency approved the permit. See Maxwell Evans, General Iron’s Move to East Side Approved by State Regulators Despite Community Outrage, Block Club Chicago (June 25, 2020, 5:00 PM), https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/25/state-environment-regulators-approve-general-irons-move-to-east-side/.
208.
Adam Mahoney, Pollution is so bad in this Chicago neighborhood, people are on hunger strike to stop it, Grist (Mar. 1, 2021), https://grist.org/justice/chicago-hunger-strike-scrapyard-pollution-environmental-justice/.
209.
See, e.g., Complaint, Southeast Environmental Task Force, et al. v. City of Chicago, HUD File No. 05-20-0419-6/8/9.
210.
Henderson et al. (2021) *21.
211.
Burkett (2019–2020), pp. 146–149.
212.
Id.
213.
Tate et al. (2021), p. 453 (finding that communities of color are overrepresented in flood-prone areas); US Water Alliance, Water Rising: Equitable Approaches to Urban Flooding 15–16 (2020), http://www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Water%20Rising%20paper.pdf.
214.
Kim (2021), p. 416.
215.
See, e.g., U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-04-142, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance 3 (2003); Complaint on Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Addressing Climate-Forced Displacement, UN Special Rapporteurs complaint submitted (Jan. 15, 2020) (available at http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2020/20200116_USA-162020_complaint.pdf).
216.
Theories of liability might sound in tort, property, and various administrative claims. For example, over the last several decades oyster lessees in Louisiana have successfully brought claims against oil and gas companies for damaging oyster beds and oyster harvests using theories of trespass. See, e.g., Alexis v. Hilcorp Energy Co., 493 F. Supp. 3d 497 (E.D. La. 2020). Notably, the Ninth Circuit has held that the Clean Air Act displaced a native Alaskan tribe’s public nuisance claims under federal common-law against energy companies for climate change-related damages. See Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849, 857–58 (2012).
217.
See Written Submission of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, In Support of Thematic Hearing Addressing Forcible Climate Displacement of Indigenous Communities in the United States (October 28, 2022) (on file with authors).
218.
Participatory Science for Environmental Protection, EPA.gov (June 16, 2022), https://www.epa.gov/participatory-science.
219.
See, e.g., id.; Davis and Ramírez-Andreotta (2021); Ristroph (2012), p. 81.
220.
A high-profile example is the Flint water crisis. Community science including pervasive water testing raised awareness, informed healthcare, and propelled lawsuits towards success. See, e.g., U.S. Water Study Research Team, U.S. Water Study: Practicing Science as a Public Good, YouTube. (Oct. 9, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Y2Q7WPLOE; see also Co-Lead Class Counsel, Ongoing Litigation Update, Flint Water Justice (2021), https://www.flintwaterjustice.com/ongoing-litigation-updates (detailing the Flint water class action suits filed 2016–17).
221.
For a comprehensive manual on how community science might be used to support litigation efforts, see Harvard Law School Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Using Citizen Science Data in Litigation (available at http://clinics.law.harvard.edu/environment/files/2019/03/Supplement-2-Using-Citizen-Science-Data-in-Litigation-March-2019.pdf).
222.
EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
223.
Examples from states not previously discussed herein include: Connecticut, see Press Release, Connecticut Department of Energy & Env’t, DEEP and UConn CIRCA Partner to Develop Mapping Tool for Environmental Justice Communities (Oct. 27, 2021) (available at https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/News-Releases/News-Releases%2D%2D-2021/DEEP-and-UConn-CIRCA-Partner-to-Develop-Mapping-Tool-for-Environmental-Justice-Communities); Michigan, see Environmental Mapper, Dept. of Env’t, Great Lakes, & Energy, https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/environmentalmapper/; MiEJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening Tool, Dept. of Env’t, Great Lakes, & Energy, https://www.michigan.gov/egle/maps-data/miejscreen; New Mexico, see H.B. 51, 55th Leg., 1st Sess. (N.M. 2021); Illinois, see Illinois EPA EJ Start, Il. Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f154845da68a4a3f837cd3b880b0233c; Pennsylvania. see Environmental Justice Areas Viewer, Pa. Dept. of Env’t Prot., https://padep-1.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f31a188de122467691cae93c3339469c.
224.
For critiques of the tool, including its lack of racial data and its inability to distinguish between disadvantaged communities see Jean Chemnick, Experts to White House: EJ Screening Tool Should Consider Race, E&E News: Climate Wire (June 1, 2022 6:40 AM) www.eenews.net/articles/experts-to-white-house-ej-screening-tool-should-consider-race/.
225.
Henderson et al. (2021) *20.
226.
See, e.g., W. Virginia v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022); Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 142 S. Ct. 661, 665 (2022) (quoting Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021)) (“We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.”).
227.
Id.
228.
See, e.g., Heinzerling (2022) https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/how-government-ends/ (describing the Court’s “roll[] out” of the major questions doctrine over three cases and why the doctrine limits both agency and Congress’ power).
229.
Id.
230.
See Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., (Dkt. 20-1199).
231.
Pamela King, 7 Cases that Reshaped Environmental Law in 2022, E&E News Greenwire (December 22, 2022 1:40 PM), https://www.eenews.net/articles/7-cases-that-reshaped-environmental-law-in-2022/.
232.
See, e.g., Perera (2017), pp. 142–146 (discussing disparities in pollution and climate change burdens by race and economic status worldwide).
233.
See, e.g., Hajat et al. (2015); Inter-agency Support Group on Indigenous Peoples: Issues Paper on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change, 2008, available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/tk/emccilc-01/other/emccilc-01-ipcc-en.pdf.
234.
The same limitations on constitutional claims, for example, are not present in all jurisdictions. See Oppenheimer et al. (2012).

References

Baker SH (2019) Anti-resilience: a roadmap for transformational justice within the energy system. Harv Civ Rights-Civ Lib Law Rev 54:1
Google Scholar
Ball CA (2006) The curious intersection of nuisance and takings law. Boston Univ Law Rev 86:819
Google Scholar
Been V (1994) Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: disproportionate siting or market dynamics? Yale Law J 103:1383
Article Google Scholar
Biermann F (2021) The future of ‘environmental’ policy in the anthropocene: time for a paradigm shift. Environ Polit 30:1–2
Article Google Scholar
Brennan TA (1993) Environmental torts. Vand Law Rev 46(1):44–48
Google Scholar
Bryant B (1995) Environmental justice: issues, policies, and solutions, pp 5–6
Google Scholar
Bullard RD (2000) Dumping in Dixie: race, class, and environmental quality, p 53
Google Scholar
Bullard RD (2021) Introduction: environmental justice—once a footnote, now a headline. Harv Environ Law Rev 45:243
Google Scholar
Bullard R et al (2007) Toxic wastes and race at twenty 1987–2007: a report prepared for the United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries, pp 1–14
Google Scholar
Burkett M (2019–2020) Litigating separate and equal: climate justice and the fourth branch. Stan Law Rev Online 72:145
Google Scholar
Chen Z et al (2022) Ambient air pollutant exposures and COVID-19 severity and mortality in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 in Southern California. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 206:440. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202108-1909OC
Article Google Scholar
Colangelo SA (2021) Environmental enforcement 2021: the likely resurgence of tools targeting environmental justice. Trends 52:4
Google Scholar
Colangelo SA (2022) Forging complete justice: equitable relief in environmental enforcement. Harv Environ Law Rev 46:315
Google Scholar
Cole LW (1994) Environmental justice litigation: another stone in David’s Sling. Fordham Urb Law J 21:523
Google Scholar
Cole LW (1995) Community initiatives: macho law brains, public citizens, and grassroots activists: three models of environmental advocacy. Va Environ Law J 14:687
Google Scholar
Cole LW, Foster SR (2000) From the ground up: environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement, pp 54–55
Google Scholar
Daly E (2002) New hurdles for environmental justice plaintiffs. Nat Resour Environ 17:18
Google Scholar
Dana DA, Tuerkheimer D (2017) After Flint: environmental justice as equal protection. Northwest Univ Law Rev Online 111:93
Google Scholar
Davis LF, Ramírez-Andreotta MD (2021) Participatory research for environmental justice: a critical interpretive synthesis. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6274
Drury RT, Chu F (Fall 1994/Winter 1995) From White Knight lawyers to community organizing: citizens for a better environment — California. Race Poverty Environ 5:52
Google Scholar
Ferris D (1994) Communities of color and hazardous waste cleanup: expanding public participation in superfund cleanups. Fordham Urb Law J 21:671
Google Scholar
Fleischman F et al (2020) US forest service implementation of the national environmental policy act: fast, variable, rarely litigated, and declining. J For 118:403
Google Scholar
Flowers CC (2020) Waste: One Woman’s Fight Against America’s Dirty Secret
Google Scholar
Foster S (2004) The challenge of environmental justice. Rutgers J Law Urb Policy 1:1
Google Scholar
Foster SR (2017) Vulnerability, equality and environmental justice: the potential and limits of law. In: Holifield R, Chakraborty J, Walker G (eds) The Routledge handbook of environmental justice, pp 136–137
Google Scholar
Fredericks CF et al (2019) Social cost and material loss: the Dakota access pipeline. N Y Univ J Legis Pub Policy 22:563
Google Scholar
Gaba JM, Kelly ME (1990) The citizen suit provision of CERCLA: a sheep in wolf’s clothing? Sw Law J 43:929
Google Scholar
Glenn C (2017) Upholding civil rights in environmental law: the case for Ex Ante Title VI Regulation and Enforcement. N Y Univ Rev Law Soc Change 41:45
Google Scholar
Guana E (1995) Federal environmental citizen provisions: obstacles and incentives on the road to environmental justice. Ecol Law Q 22:1
Google Scholar
Hajat A et al (2015) Socioeconomic disparities and air pollution exposure: a global review. Air Pollution and Health
Google Scholar
Heinzerling L (2022) How government ends. Boston Review (Sept. 28, 2022)
Google Scholar
Heisler KR (2011) Understanding environmental enforcement. In: Environmental law enforcement and compliance: leading lawyers on communicating with enforcement agencies, overcoming compliance challenges, and developing response strategies (Inside the Minds), p 4
Google Scholar
Henderson D et al (2021) Environmental justice litigation: few wins, still effective. Nat Resour Environ 36:17
Google Scholar
Hoffer MA (2003) Closing the door on private enforcement of Title VI and EPA’s discriminatory effects regulations: strategies for environmental justice stakeholders after Sandoval and Gonzaga. New Eng Law Rev 38:971
Google Scholar
Kim JJ (2021) Leave no one behind: realizing environmental justice through climate litigation remedies. Ecol Law Q 48:409
Google Scholar
Kuehn RR (1994) Remedying the unequal enforcement of environmental laws. J CR Econ Dev 9:625
Google Scholar
Lado ME (2019) No more excuses: building a new vision of civil rights enforcement in the context of environmental justice. Pa J Law Soc Change 22:281
Google Scholar
Latham M et al (2011) The intersection of tort and environmental law: where the twains should meet and depart. Fordham Law Rev 80:737
Google Scholar
Lazarus RJ (1992) Pursuing “environmental justice:” the distributional effects of environmental protection. Northwest Univ Law Rev 87:787
Google Scholar
Magesh S et al (2021) Disparities in COVID-19 outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 4 JAMA Network Open, at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2785980
Mank BC (2008) Title VI. In: Gerrard MB, Foster SR (eds) The law of environmental justice: theories and procedures to address disproportionate risks, p 23
Google Scholar
Mikati I et al (2018) Disparities in distribution of particulate matter emissions sources by race and poverty status. Am J Pub Health 108:480
Article Google Scholar
Mohai P, Saha R (2015) Which came first, people or pollution? A review of theory and evidence from longitudinal environmental justice studies. Environ Res Lett 10:125,011
Article Google Scholar
Northern KS (1997) Battery and beyond: a tort law response to environmental racism. Wm Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 21:485
Google Scholar
Oppenheimer D et al (2012) Comparative equality and antidiscrimination law: cases, codes, constitutions, and commentary
Google Scholar
Outka U (2005) Environmental injustice and the problem of the law. Me Law Rev 57:209
Google Scholar
Perera FP (2017) Multiple threats to child health from fossil fuel combustion: impacts of air pollution and climate change. Environ Health Perspect 125:141
Article Google Scholar
Rendleman D (2018) Rehabilitating the nuisance injunction to protect the environment. Wash Lee Law Rev 75:1859
Google Scholar
Ristroph EB (2012) Integrating community knowledge into environmental and natural resource decision-making. Wash Lee J Energy Climate Environ 3:81
Google Scholar
Roberts JD et al (2022) “I can’t breathe”: examining the legacy of American racism on determinants of health and the ongoing pursuit of environmental justice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-022-00343-x
Rothstein R (2017) The color of the law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America
Google Scholar
Schwartz VE et al (2010) Torts: cases and materials 1–2, 12th edn.
Google Scholar
Spiller E et al (2021) Mortality risk from PM2.5: a comparison of modeling approaches to identify disparities across racial/ethnic groups in policy outcomes. Environ Health Perspect 129:127,004-1
Article Google Scholar
Sprainer H (2022) Air quality equity: why the clean air act failed to protect low-income communities and communities of color from COVID-19. N Y Univ Environ Law J 30:123
Google Scholar
Tate E et al (2021) Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United States. Nat Haz 106:435
Article Google Scholar
Taylor D (2014) Toxic communities: environmental racism, industrial pollution and residential mobility
Google Scholar
Todd J (2020) A “sense of equity” in environmental justice litigation. Harv Environ Law Rev 44:169
Google Scholar
Villa CJ (2022) No “box to be checked”: environmental justice in modern legal practice. N Y Univ Environ Law J 30:157
Google Scholar
Wilson B (2022) Making me ill: environmental racism and justice as disability. Univ Pa Law Rev 170:1722
Google Scholar
Yang T (2002) Melding civil rights and environmentalism: finding environmental justice’s place in environmental regulation. Harv Environ Law Rev 26:1
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
Sara A. Colangelo
The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, Columbus, OH, USA
Abigail E. André

Authors

Sara A. Colangelo
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Abigail E. André
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara A. Colangelo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Italian Ministry of Culture, Rome, Italy
Giovanni Antonelli
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Michael Gerrard
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
Sara Colangelo
Consiglio die Stato, Rome, Italy
Giancarlo Montedoro
Tar Campania, Naples, Italy
Maurizio Santise
Constitutional Court of Belgium, Ghent, Belgium
Luc Lavrysen
Department of Political Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
Maria Vittoria Ferroni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Colangelo, S.A., André, A.E. (2023). Environmental Justice Before U.S. Courts. In: Antonelli, G., et al. Environmental Law Before the Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_3
Published: 31 October 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41526-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41527-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics