• Argued that Key Portions of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act Are Unconstitutional. Mr. Pryor has aggressively sought out opportunities to advance a remarkably narrow view of the federal government's power to protect the environment. For example, alone among state attorneys general, Mr. Pryor urged the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional federal efforts to protect wildlife on private lands under the Endangered Species Act. Pryor unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to consider and reverse a Fourth Circuit ruling written by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III that upheld federal authority to protect the red wolf and other species. Wilkinson rejected views later advanced by Pryor because they would "place in peril the entire federal regulatory scheme for wildlife and natural resource conservation" and "would require courts to move abruptly from preserving traditional state roles to dismantling historic federal ones." Gibbs v. Babbitt. Pryor also urged the Supreme Court to strike down federal efforts to protect waters and wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds. Again, Pryor was the only state attorney general to file a brief arguing that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to protect these nationally-important species. Eight states filed a brief supporting federal power. SWANCC v. United States.
  
  
• Opposed Federal Efforts to Reduce Air Pollution; Supported an Environmental "Race to the Bottom." Environmental laws are textbook examples of cooperative federalism, with the federal governments and states joining together to achieve environmental progress. Mr. Pryor rejects this cooperative federalism in favor of what he calls "competitive federalism," where states can race to the environmental bottom, competing for businesses and tax revenue by offering ever laxer environmental protections. To advance this notion of "competitive federalism," Pryor has argued that states should not be accountable in court for failing to enforce minimum federal mandates. Pryor has also testified before Congress to oppose the Clinton Administration's efforts to close a loophole that allowed coal burning facilities to renovate their plants without upgrading pollution control technology. In testimony, Pryor accused the EPA of "invad[ing] the province of the states" by using "the blunt tool of enforcement" to carry out the pollution control requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  
  
• Demonstrated Hostility Towards Environmental Justice. Mr. Pryor calls "his favorite victory of the 2000 Term" a Supreme Court ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval that denied individuals the ability to sue for enforcement of regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act that form the primary source of rights to ensure environmental justice. His sweeping conclusion on this issue is remarkably insensitive to the victims of environmental injustice; his position is that: "Environmental racism cases should fail generally."

If you have questions or comments about this website or
Community Rights Counsel email us!

© 2005 Community Rights Counsel. All rights reserved.