Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
- Decided
- March 4, 1998
- Docket
- 96-643
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 10,096 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds, disapproved (not yet verified) · Jevnikar v. Slawinski
What later courts said
- holding that federal courts must ensure that they have jurisdiction before considering the merits of a case — Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (2004)
- holding that federal courts must assure themselves that they have subject matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a suit — Lance Pough v. United States (2006)
- holding that because defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), plaintiffs need only show that the facts alleged, if proved, would confer standing — Central Delta Water Agency v. United States (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*86] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a private enforcement action under the citizen-suit provision of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 100 Stat. 1755, 42 U. S. C. § 11046(a)(1). The case presents the merits question, answered in the affirmative by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, whether EPCRA authorizes suits for purely past violations. It also presents the jurisdictional question whether respondent, plaintiff below, has standing to bring this action.
I
Statutes cited
- 42 U.S.C. § 11046
- 42 U.S.C. § 11022
- 33 U.S.C. § 1365
- 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1
- 15 U.S.C. § 2622
- 42 U.S.C. § 7622
- 28 U.S.C. § 1343
- 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Cite this
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.