George E. Warren Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | 97-1656,Nos. 97-1651,s. 97-1651 |
| Citation | 164 F.3d 676 |
| Parties | , 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,252 GEORGE E. WARREN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Respondents. Friends of the Earth, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Before: GINSBURG, SENTELLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the EPA's Motion To Clarify and Amend the Court's Opinion With Respect to the Issue of Prudential Standing [159 F.3d 616 (1998) ] and of the responsive pleadings filed with respect thereto, it is
ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted, and the opinion is amended as follows:
At pages 620-21: Delete the two paragraphs immediately following the heading "A. Justiciability," as well as the first word of the third paragraph: "Second."
The material now to be omitted was based upon the erroneous belief that the petition for review had been filed under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), when in fact it was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). We need not, however, revisit the issue whether the Independent Refiners Coalition had prudential standing under the latter provision.
Although Article III precludes us from deciding a matter on the merits before determining that the party presenting it has constitutional standing to do so, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1016, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), there is no such barrier to deciding a matter on the merits before determining that the party presenting it has prudential standing. See id. at ----, n. 2, 118 S.Ct. at 1013, n. 2 (citing National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Ass'n of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 465 n. 13, 94 S.Ct. 690, 38 L.Ed.2d 646 (1974)). Having already rejected the IRC's claims on their merits, therefore, we need not now retrospectively decide whether it had prudential standing to bring those claims--though it is unlikely we would have proceeded in this manner going forward. See Busse Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1456, 1462-63 (D.C.Cir.1996) ().
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vivid Entm't, LLC v. Fielding
...See id. 2. The word “arguably” is important because standing must be decided before the merits are reached. George E. Warren Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 164 F.3d 676 (D.C.Cir.1999). 3. “In evaluating a plaintiff's standing at the motion to dismiss stage, a court may consider not only the allegati......
-
Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Perdue
...Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228, 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ; George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA , 159 F.3d 616, 620–21 (D.C. Cir. 1998), amended , 164 F.3d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (noting that if constitutional and prudential standing can be shown for at least one plaintiff, the court need not consider the stan......
-
St. of Michigan v. U.S. Envt'l Protection Agency
...costs. NRDC, 824 F.2d at 1163; see also George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA, 159 F.3d 616, 622-24 (D.C. Cir. 1998), reh'g granted, 164 F.3d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455, 475 (D.C. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 2046 (1999); NRDC v. EPA, 937 F.2d......
-
Qwest Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
...course when “one of its basic assumptions in [earlier] rulemaking was contradicted by new data”), amended on other grounds by164 F.3d 676 (D.C.Cir.1999). Finally, the Commission evaluated whether potential competition in the Phoenix MSA could ameliorate the risks of duopolistic price coordi......
-
Alex O. Canizares, Is Charming Betsy Losing Her Charm? Interpreting U.s. Statutes Consistently With International Trade Agreements and the Chevron Doctrine
...treaty obligation of the United States" limited the Environmental Protection Agency's discretion under Chevron), amended on other grounds 164 F.3d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 23 See NAFTA Binational Panel Report, supra note 2, at 44 (finding that Commerce's zeroing practice in an investigation "i......