Term: 2003
Docket: 03-358
Department Of Transportation, Et Al. v. Public Citizen Et Al.
- Pro
03-358 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. PUBLIC CITIZEN Ruling below: CA 9, 316 F.3d 1002 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action. CERT. GRANTED: 12/15/03
In the case Department of Transportation, et al. v. Public Citizen et al., 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation (DOT). The dispute arose when President George W. Bush lifted a moratorium on Mexican motor carriers operating within American borders as part of an international agreement under NAFTA provisions. Public Citizen and other groups sued DOT arguing that it should have conducted an environmental review before allowing these trucks to operate domestically because they could potentially increase air pollution levels due to their lower emission standards compared to US vehicles. The court held that since DOT did not have discretion over whether or not to allow Mexican trucking companies into the country - this was decided by presidential order and NAFTA regulations - it was therefore not required under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or Clean Air Act (CAA) laws to conduct any environmental impact assessment prior to granting permits for these foreign operators.
In the dissenting opinion for the Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen case, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of federal law. He contended that President Bush’s lifting of a moratorium on Mexican motor carrier access to U.S. highways triggered an obligation under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) for environmental review by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The majority held FMCSA lacked discretion to prevent entry due to North American Free Trade Agreement obligations, thus no NEPA or CAA reviews were required. However, Thomas pointed out that NAFTA implementation legislation expressly preserved existing environmental laws unless they conflicically prevented compliance with NAFTA; he saw no such conflict here as nothing in NAFTA requires immediate truck access without regard for potential environmental consequences. Therefore, he believed FMCSA had both authority and duty under NEPA and CAA to consider these impacts before granting operating authority.
