Jump to content

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen
Argued April 21, 2004
Decided June 7, 2004
Full case nameDepartment of Transportation, et al. v. Public Citizen, et al.
Citations541 U.S. 752 (more)
124 S. Ct. 2204; 159 L. Ed. 2d 60
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorPublic Citizen v. DOT, 316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 1088 (2003).
Holding
Because FMCSA lacks discretion to prevent cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, neither NEPA nor the CAA requires FMCSA to evaluate the environmental effects of such operations.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined by unanimous

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004), is a case argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on 21 April 2004. The question the case presented relates to Presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade actions exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the question is whether those actions are subject to those requirements as a result of a rulemaking action concerning motor carrier safety by the federal agency with responsibility for that type of safety.

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
  • Logan, Melissa (2004). "EPA & NAFTA: Tensions Rise When Trade with Mexico Threatens United States' Environmental Regulations". Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law. 19: 107. ISSN 1070-4833.
  • MacMillan, Jeannette (2005). "An International Dispute Reveals Weaknesses in Domestic Environmental Law: NAFTA, NEPA, and the Case of Mexican Trucks". Ecology Law Quarterly. 32: 491. ISSN 0046-1121.
  • Miller, Joseph (2004). "United States Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen" (PDF). Harvard Environmental Law Review. 28 (2): 593–604.
[edit]