In her two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been a pivotal force in shaping environmental law, and has broken with the Supreme Court's more conservative justices in a significant number of important environmental cases. For example:

• In Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004), Justice O'Connor provided the deciding vote in an important case upholding EPA's authority to override a state-issued Clean Air Act permit. Justice Kennedy issued a vitriolic states'-rights dissent joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist.
• In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 535 U.S. 302 (2002), Justice O'Connor joined Justice Stevens' majority opinion upholding land use controls necessary to protect Lake Tahoe from pollution. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Scalia would have declared that the TRPA's actions constituted a taking of property.
• In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), Justice O'Connor joined Justice Kennedy's majority opinion remanding a takings case challenging a restriction on development of tidal wetlands back to state court, but wrote a separate concurrence forcefully disagreeing with Justice Scalia and arguing that, on remand, the state court should give consideration to the fact that the wetland regulations were in place when the owner purchased the property.
• In Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envt'l Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000), Justice O'Connor joined the majority in a ruling that upheld the ability of citizens to sue polluting companies to ensure compliance with federal environmental mandates. Justices Scalia and Thomas would have broadly prohibited these citizen suits.
• In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 694 (1995), Justice O'Connor joined the majority of the Court in rejecting a timber industry challenge to Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations prohibiting severe habitat modifications that would kill an endangered or threatened species. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Scalia would have invalidated one of the most powerful tools for protecting species.
• In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). O'Connor authored the 7-2 majority opinion strongly affirming states' ability to impose minimum stream-flow requirements as part of Clean Water Act certifications, with only Justices Thomas and Scalia dissenting.
• In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), Justice O'Connor dissented with Justice Blackmun, denouncing what Blackmun called a "slash-and-burn expedition through the law of environmental standing."
• In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), an important environmental takings case involving the enforcement of a flood protection ordinance, Justice O'Connor joined Justices Stevens and Blackmun in dissent from a majority ruling that found there was a constitutionally mandated damages remedy under the takings clause.

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

© 2005 Community Rights Counsel. All rights reserved.