Published: 01.22.2004
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - Federal regulators can trump more permissive state officials in
some disputes over costly measures to limit air pollution, the Supreme Court
said Wednesday.
The ruling departed from the court's trend toward granting state governments
more power.
Alaska's governor wanted to allow the world's largest zinc mine to use cheaper,
less effective anti-pollution equipment, but the federal Environmental Protection
Agency said no. The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholds EPA's veto power in such
cases.
"The highest court in the land has made it eminently clear that the EPA
has ample authority to protect the public health and the environment from the
harmful effects of air pollution," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer with the
interest group Environmental Defense.
The victory for environmentalists may be more symbolic than substantive. The
portion of the Clean Air Act at issue has not been front and center in court
fights over pollution.
The Clean Air Act allows state officials to make some decisions involving facilities
within their borders, but still gives the EPA wide authority to enforce the
anti-pollution law.
In this case, Congress gave the EPA power to override unreasonable state decisions,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.
The case seemed a bigger setback for the cause of state sovereignty, a subject
that has produced a series of 5-4 rulings expanding state control at the expense
of the federal government, and which has provoked deep disagreement between
the high court's more liberal and conservative wings.