CS 5c: National Audubon Society, Petitioners v. Environmental

CS 5c: National Audubon Society, Petitioners v. Environmental

Case Briefing

Case Name and Citation

Environmental Defense Fund, INC., and National Audubon Society v. Environmental Protection Agency and Russell E, Train Administrator, October 1, 1974

Case Citation: 510 F.2d 1292 (D.C. 1992)

Facts of the Case

This case involves a petition made by Environmental Defense Fund, INC, and National Audubon Society against Environmental Protection Agency and Russell E requesting invalidation of an order issued by the Environmental protection Agency  suspending the registration and prohibiting the manufacture and sale of pesticides aldrin and dieldrin. The petition questioned the criteria used to uphold the order sidelining the importance of pesticides to farmers and the the adverse effect the order would ascertain on the manufacturers of the pesticides. They hence sought interpretation of appellate court in solving the conflict of interest between the Environmental Preservation Agencies (EPA) the producers and users of pesticides. The trial court had ruled in favor of the order issued by Environmental Protection Agency.

Legal Issue Presented before Court

Did the trial court error in making their judgment in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency’s order to suspend and prohibit manufacture and sale of the pesticides aldrin and dieldrin without looking much into the arguments raised by Environmental Defense Fund and pesticide manufacturers on the advance effect imposed on them by the order?

Decision

Chief Administrative Law Judge affirmed the suspension of registration.

Rationale or Reasoning

The court upheld the decision made prior by the trial courts concluding that EPA’s order was a rational exercise of discretion supported by substantial evidence.

  • The primary danger imposed by the pesticides aldrin and dieldrin presented an imminent hazard which was quite evident as presented by the EPA.
  • The judge recognized that Shell company’s opposing of the order did not provide any proposal of environmental safety endangered by their products but rather based their arguments on the untimelyness of the order and the need of the pesticides to farmers and other producers.
  • The judge affirmed that prior notices had been given but ignored by parties concerned and therefore the petitioners did not have any strong legal basis to want withdrawal of the order.