The Southern District of New York in a judgment filed on Thursday granted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs requested relief for allegations that suspended reporting requirements and non-enforcement policies during the COVID-19 pandemic caused environmental harm and breached the Endangered Species Act. The court ruled they did not have standing.
The plaintiffs, conservation advocacy groups including Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance Inc., and Center for Biological Diversity, argued in their complaint filed in August 2020 that the EPA was creating additional risks for species which are already in danger by suspending monitoring and reporting requirements, and endangering habitats.
“While we respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling on standing, Trump’s reckless and opportunistic non-enforcement policy was eventually withdrawn under legal pressure from the Center and others, and the Biden administration is again enforcing the anti-pollution laws,” said Eric Glitzenstein, the Center for Biological Diversity’s litigation director.
Although the non-enforcement policies have since been eliminated, the plaintiffs alleged that there was still damage caused by the EPA’s decision. They claimed that the EPA should have consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service before making the decision to reduce enforcement and reporting.
In the opinion filed shortly before the judgment, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff noted that, under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA has the ability in an emergency to informally notify other government bodies after the decision is made, but the court found that the EPA did not consult with either group even under the emergency consultation provision.
The EPA, according to the opinion, did not deny that the policies could have caused injury to endangered species, specifically Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons, if pollutants entered their habitats, but held that there was no evidence from the plaintiffs that the policies actually caused harm. This issue of standing led Judge Rakoff to rule in favor of the EPA’s motion for summary judgment.
“In the end, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, a factfinder could not reasonably conclude from plaintiffs’ scant evidence that there was a real risk of increased discharge in sturgeon habitat traceable to the Policy,” the opinion said.
The EPA was represented by the U.S. Department of Justice. The plaintiffs were represented by the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic.
