
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Tenth Circuit Applies Statute of Limitations That Is “Closest Fit” in CERCLA Action, Overrules Earlier Precedent
- New Jersey Weighs in on State Climate Tort Claims
- First Circuit Holds that Smelling Vehicle Exhaust Constitutes Injury-in-Fact under Clean Air Act
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
Topics
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- CLE
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
On September 14, 2023, in Conservation Law Foundation v. Academy Bus, a Massachusetts District Court held that the members of the Conservation Law Foundation (the “Foundation”) lacked standing to challenge the idling of buses under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Conservation Law Found. v. Acad. Express, LLC., No. 20-10032-WGY, 2023 WL 5984517, at *1 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2023). Specifically, the court held that simply breathing in polluted air, without any concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant, is not sufficient to prove an actual injury under the CAA.
The question arose in the context of a suit against three companies operating buses in Massachusetts and Connecticut in which the Foundation alleged that the defendants excessively idled their buses in violation of the State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”) approved by the EPA under the CAA. The Massachusetts SIP prohibits any person from unnecessarily running the engine of a vehicle when it is stopped for a foreseeable time exceeding five minutes. Similarly, Connecticut’s SIP prohibits excessive idling of a vehicle for more than three minutes. On specific days from October 2019 to February 2020, an investigator for the Foundation found that the defendants’ buses idled at bus stops from six minutes to over two hours.
Several of the Foundation’s members stated in affidavits that they noted the smell of exhaust around the bus stops and were concerned about the effects of exhaust on their health. For example, one member allegedly worried about the potential effects on his young son, who had a higher risk of developing respiratory illnesses, such as asthma. Other members described coughing when breathing in exhaust fumes and changing their recreational activities in areas with high vehicle exhaust.
Relevant case law holds that for an organization to have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, among other things one or more of its members must (1) have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent (2) that was likely caused by the defendant and (3) that would likely be redressed by judicial relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the Foundation failed to identify any member who suffered an injury-in-fact that was fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct.
To prove the first prong, the member must have personally suffered some actual or threatened injury. While noting that other courts have held that simply breathing and smelling polluted air is an injury in and of itself, the Massachusetts court held that the requirement of an actual injury necessitates more; that there must be “associated physical side effects, recreational harm, or well-grounded fear of health effects” for there to be an injury in fact. When reviewing the evidence, the court found that the only theme present across the claims was a generalized concern regarding adverse health effects. There appeared to be no evidence that any particular member’s respiratory concerns were directly tied air pollution, much less the exhaust from defendants’ idling buses.
The court also rejected the argument that the recreational harms alleged by members were sufficient to confer standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show that there is a causal connection between the challenged action and the identified harm. Although members alleged they experienced coughing when breathing in exhaust, or reduced their outdoor activities, the members did not specify that they did so specifically in response to the exhaust emitted at the defendants’ bus stops. The court explained that the casual connection in the standing inquiry is especially important in urban environments where a mile radius contains numerous vehicles and bus stops. Allowing such suit against the defendants opened the door to anyone suffering the most minor injuries who occasionally travelled within two miles of any Boston bus stop to sue the defendants. Thus, the court held that the connection between the members injuries and the defendants’ conduct was too attenuated to satisfy the second prong of the standing inquiry.
This case tackles a consistently problematic issue of standing under the CAA since air pollution comes from many different sources. The Massachusetts District Court in this decision clarified that simply breathing in polluted air without proof of an actual injury, recreational harm or well-founded fear of a health effect does not meet the actual injury requirement. Further, a plaintiff must allege an actual injury that is fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant to satisfy the second prong of the standing inquiry.