For updates on the CRCQL lawsuit against the PA DEP, visit the following pages:
- 6/1998: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Pennsylvania’s Request to Hear Arguments on Chester Lawsuit Against DEP
- 6/1998: Federal Circuit Court Decision in Chester Environmental Racism Case
- 12/1997: Federal Court Gives Green Light to Environmental Racism suit against PA DEP
- 5/1996: Suit Says Racial Bias Led to Clustering of Solid-Waste Sites
HARRISBURG, Pa., June 8 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Supreme Court today granted the Ridge Administration’s request to hear arguments in a case that likely will determine whether or not racial-discrimination lawsuits — such as one filed by citizens of Chester against the state Department of Environmental Protection — must prove that the alleged discrimination was intentional.
A group of Chester citizens have sued DEP, alleging that its permitting policies have concentrated a disparate share of pollution in Chester — a Pennsylvania community that includes a high percentage of minority Pennsylvanians.
The lawsuit does not allege DEP intentionally targeted minority areas such as Chester; rather, it asserts that the alleged discrimination — an allegation that DEP vigorously disputes — violates federal regulations, regardless of whether or not there was discriminatory intent. DEP, in addition to arguing the facts of the case, has argued that federal law requires litigants such as the Chester group to prove that any discrimination was intentional.
If the high court ultimately finds in favor of the Ridge Administration, it would eliminate the basis for the federal school-funding lawsuit recently filed by the School District of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia and others under similar regulations issued under the Civil Rights Act.
That case claims that the Commonwealth’s funding of public schools has a discriminatory effect on minority students, but does not assert that the alleged discrimination is intentional.
In addition to the legal question of the necessity of proving intent, the Ridge Administration is asserting in court that the allegation of discrimination is factually untrue. That case is pending in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
In the Chester case, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last December that appellants such as the Chester citizens only needed to prove a discriminatory effect, not a discriminatory intent. The Ridge Administration now has the chance to argue that this decision should be reversed.
Paul A. Tufano, General Counsel to Gov. Tom Ridge, will argue the case. Tufano hailed the Court’s decision to hear the Commonwealth’s arguments.
“Not only is this case extremely important in the area of environmental law, it will present the Supreme Court with the opportunity to determine whether state and local governments may be sued in federal court by private citizens solely for alleged violations of federal agency regulations,” Tufano said. “We believe that, before a state or local agency is hauled into federal court on claims that their policies have had a discriminatory effect in conflict with regulations, that the federal agency itself should determine whether such violations have occurred.
“If the Chester group’s lawsuit prevails, state and local agencies receiving federal funds might be sued at any time by any person or entity that believes the agency’s policies or practices has a discriminatory effect. We do not believe Congress intended to impose such litigation burdens on state and local government.” SOURCE Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
High court to hear Delco ‘environmental racism’ claim
June 9, 1998
By CATHERINE DONALDSON-EVANS
Of the Delaware County Times Staff
The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to hear the Chester-based “environmental racism” case, in which a resident group sued the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection over its placement of waste-treatment facilities in the city.
The central issue of the suit, originated by Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, is whether private citizens can sue over government agency regulations that allegedly result in racial discrimination.
Chester Residents is a racially integrated, environmental activist group formed in reaction to the late-1980s influx of waste facilities into the city.
Both Chester Residents and the Ridge Administration, which filed the Supreme Court petition on behalf of the DEP, view yesterday’s decision as a triumph.
Zulene Mayfield, the chairperson of Chester Residents since 1994, said the justices’ acceptance of the case is evidence the crusade against environmental racism has not been in vain.
She also admitted the battle is far from over.
“It’s not every day that local folks can have the country’s highest court take their case, but if we didn’t have these problems, we wouldn’t have to go to these extremes,” said Mayfield. “We’re happy for that victory, but we’re still fighting waste facilities. In one sense, it’s a bittersweet victory.”
Paul A. Tufano, the general counsel to Gov. Tom Ridge, said he believes the Supreme Court will side with the government’s argument that private citizens have no right under federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations to challenge DEP’s actions in court.
“It’s a victory,” Tufano said in a telephone interview. “We’re hopeful that the reason they (will) hear our case is because perhaps they’re inclined to agree with us … and will ultimately rule in our favor.”
Chester Residents’ attorney Jerome Balter of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment.
According to the suit, the DEP has granted permits for five waste facilities in Chester since 1987 but only two for sites elsewhere in Delaware County.
The Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of 2.1 million tons of waste per year, compared to 1,400 tons per year for the sites outside Chester.
Chester has about 42,000 residents, 65 percent of them black.
Delaware County, excluding Chester, has a population of roughly 502,000, 91 percent of it white.
The people of Chester contend that they have had to endure heavy truck traffic and pollution, and say they fear for their health.
“It’s a little disheartening to know that we still have to fight to ensure that our children will grow up in a safe environment,” said Mayfield.
The Rev. Horace Strand, a founder of the Chester Residents’ group, is “elated” by the Supreme Court’s decision.
“It’s an issue that has to be resolved,” he said.
“The government and these (waste) companies have been hiding under the disguise of bringing in economic development and justifying the injustice they’ve placed on low-income and minority communities. These facilities prey upon communities that are powerless to resist them and economically poor.”
Chester Residents’ sued the DEP and various officials, accusing them of violating a federal law that bars racial bias by any federally financed endeavor. The state’s environmental protection efforts get federal aid.
The lawsuit was aimed at blocking the 1995 state permit issued to Soil Remediation Systems, which treats contaminated soil. It was the eighth waste facility to be squeezed into a region less than half a square mile.
The group did not allege that the state agency or any state official intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, only that the permit-granting results were racially biased.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell threw out the suit in 1996, ruling that suits filed by private citizens are not allowed when only a discriminatory effect – not a discriminatory intent – is alleged.
But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated the suit last year.
“We hold that private plaintiffs may maintain an action under discriminatory-effect regulations promulgated by federal administrative agencies,” the appeals court said.
Tufano believes the 3rd Circuit court was wrong.
“If the Chester group’s lawsuit prevails, state and local agencies receiving federal funds might be sued at any time by any person or entity that believes the agency’s policies or practices have a discriminatory effect,” he said in a report issued yesterday. “We do not believe Congress intended to impose such litigation burdens on state and local government.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that the federal anti-bias law allows such private lawsuits when intentional discrimination is alleged, but never has ruled directly on whether they are allowed over discriminatory effects.
The appeals court, however, interpreted the written opinions and votes of five justices in the 1983 ruling to “infer” Supreme Court endorsement of such a right. Four of those five justices have since retired.
Mayfield is confident her cause will prevail.
“In the Supreme Court, we’ll be victorious,” she said. “The victory will come from our will to survive.”
The case is Seif vs. Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, 97-1620.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
June 9, 1998
Supreme Court takes Chester waste case
Residents say the processing facilities in their city are a form of racial bias. They cite health concerns.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether a group of Chester residents may pursue an “environmental racism” lawsuit over the state’s placing of waste-treatment facilities in their city.
The legal issue the court will be asked to address is whether private citizens can sue over a government agency’s regulations that allegedly result in racial discrimination.
According to the lawsuit filed by Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has granted permits for five waste facilities in Chester since 1987 but only two for sites elsewhere in Delaware County.
And the Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of 2,100,000 tons of waste per year, compared with 1,400 tons per year for the sites outside Chester, the suit says.
Chester residents contend that they have had to put up with heavy truck traffic and occasional stench, and that they fear for their health.
The racially integrated group of residents sued the state agency and various officials, accusing them of violating a federal law that bars racial bias by any federally financed endeavor. The state’s environmental-protection efforts receive federal aid.
The lawsuit was aimed at blocking a permit for a facility in Chester to treat contaminated soil.
The group did not allege that the state agency or any state official intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, only that the permit-granting results were racially biased.
Chester has 42,000 residents, 65 percent of them black. Delaware County, excluding Chester, has a population of about 502,000, 91 percent of it white.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell threw out the lawsuit in 1996, ruling that the law does not allow lawsuits filed by private citizens when only a discriminatory effect — not a discriminatory intent — is alleged.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated the lawsuit last year.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that the federal anti-bias law allows such private lawsuits when intentional discrimination is alleged, but it has never ruled directly on whether they are allowed over discriminatory effects.
The appeals court, however, interpreted the written opinions and votes of five justices in the 1983 ruling to “infer” Supreme Court endorsement of such a right. Four of those five justices have since retired.
In the appeal acted on yesterday, the DEP’s lawyers argued that the Third Circuit court wrongly discovered a private right to sue in such cases.
Last modified: 10 June 1998