• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
83OCTOBER TERM, 1997Syllabus
STEEL CO.,
aka
CHICAGO STEEL & PICKLING CO.
v.
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
certiorari to the united states court of appeals forthe seventh circuit
No. 96–643. Argued October 6, 1997—Decided March 4, 1998Alleging that petitioner manufacturer had violated the Emergency Plan-ning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) by failing tofile timely toxic- and hazardous-chemical storage and emission reportsfor past years, respondent environmental protection organization filedthis private enforcement action for declaratory and injunctive relief under EPCRA’s citizen-suit provision, 42 U. S. C. §11046(a)(1). TheDistrict Court held that, because petitioner had brought its filings up todate by the time the complaint was filed, the court lacked jurisdictionto entertain a suit for a present violation; and that, because EPCRAdoes not allow suit for a purely historical violation, respondent’s alle-gation of untimely filing was not a claim upon which relief could begranted. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that EPCRA au-thorizes citizen suits for purely past violations.
Held:
Because none of the relief sought would likely remedy respondent’salleged injury in fact, respondent lacks standing to maintain this suit,and this Court and the lower courts lack jurisdiction to entertain it.Pp. 88–110.(a) The merits issue in this case—whether §11046(a) permits citizensuits for purely past violations—is not also “jurisdictional,” and so doesnot occupy the same status as standing to sue as a question that mustbe resolved first. It is firmly established that a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is not defeated by the absence of a valid (as opposedto arguable) cause of action, see,
e. g., Bell
v.
Hood,
327 U. S. 678, 682.Subject-matter jurisdiction exists if the right to recover will be sus-tained under one reading of the Constitution and laws and defeatedunder another,
id.,
at 685, unless the claim clearly appears to be immate-rial, wholly insubstantial and frivolous, or otherwise so devoid of meritas not to involve a federal controversy, see,
e. g., Oneida Indian Nationof N. Y.
v.
County of Oneida,
414 U. S. 661, 666. Here, respondent winsunder one construction of EPCRA and loses under another, and its claimis not frivolous or immaterial. It is unreasonable to read §11046(c)—which provides that “[t]he district court shall have jurisdiction in ac-tions brought under subsection (a) . . . to enforce [an EPCRA] require-ment . . . and to impose any civil penalty provided for violation of thatrequirement”—as making all the elements of the §11046(a) cause of ac-
528 US 83 (1998) http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/83/index.html
 
84 STEEL CO.
v.
CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENTSyllabustion jurisdictional, rather than as merely specifying the remedial
powers
of the court.
Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd.
v.
Chesapeake Bay Founda-tion, Inc.,
484 U. S. 49, as well as cases deciding a statutory standingquestion before a constitutional standing question, distinguished. In nocase has this Court called the existence of a cause of action “jurisdic-tional,” and decided that question before resolving a dispute concerningthe existence of an Article III case or controversy. Such a principlewould turn every statutory question in an EPCRA citizen suit into aquestion of jurisdiction that this Court would have to consider—indeed,raise
sua sponte
—even if not raised below. Pp. 88–93.(b) This Court declines to endorse the “doctrine of hypothetical juris-diction,” under which several Courts of Appeals have found it properto proceed immediately to the merits question, despite jurisdictionalobjections, at least where (1) the merits question is more readily re-solved, and (2) the prevailing party on the merits would be the same asthe prevailing party were jurisdiction denied. That doctrine carriesthe courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and thusoffends fundamental separation-of-powers principles. In a long andvenerable line of cases, this Court has held that, without proper juris-diction, a court cannot proceed at all, but can only note the jurisdictionaldefect and dismiss the suit. See,
e. g., Capron
v.
Van Noorden,
2Cranch 126;
Arizonans for Official English
v.
Arizona,
520 U. S. 43, 73.
Bell
v.
Hood, supra; National Railroad Passenger Corp.
v.
National Assn. of Railroad Passengers,
414 U. S. 453, 465, n. 13;
Norton
v.
Ma-thews,
427 U. S. 524, 531;
Secretary of Navy
v.
Avrech,
418 U. S. 676, 678
(per curiam); United States
v.
Augenblick,
393 U. S. 348;
Philbrook
v.
Glodgett,
421 U. S. 707, 721; and
Chandler 
v.
Judicial Council of TenthCircuit,
398 U. S. 74, 86–88, distinguished. For a court to pronounceupon a law’s meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction todo so is, by very definition, an ultra vires act. Pp. 93–102.(c) Respondent lacks standing to sue. Standing is the “irreducibleconstitutional minimum” necessary to make a justiciable “case” or “con-troversy” under Article III, §2.
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504U. S. 555, 560. It contains three requirements: injury in fact to theplaintiff, causation of that injury by the defendant’s complained-of con-duct, and a likelihood that the requested relief will redress that injury.
E. g., ibid.
Even assuming, as respondent asserts, that petitioner’s fail-ure to report EPCRA information in a timely manner, and the lingeringeffects of that failure, constitute a concrete injury in fact to respondentand its members that satisfies Article III, cf.
id.,
at 578, the complaintnevertheless fails the redressability test: None of the specific items of relief sought—a declaratory judgment that petitioner violated EPCRA;
 
85Cite as: 523 U. S. 83 (1998)Opinion of the Courtinjunctive relief authorizing respondent to make periodic inspectionsof petitioner’s facility and records and requiring petitioner to give re-spondent copies of its compliance reports; and orders requiring peti-tioner to pay EPCRA civil penalties to the Treasury and to reimburserespondent’s litigation expenses—and no conceivable relief under thecomplaint’s final, general request, would serve to reimburse respondentfor losses caused by petitioner’s late reporting, or to eliminate any ef-fects of that late reporting upon respondent. Pp. 102–109.90 F. 3d 1237, vacated and remanded.
Scalia, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Rehnquist,
C. J., and
O’Connor, Kennedy,
and
Thomas, JJ.,
joined, and in which
Breyer, J.,
joined as to Parts I and IV.
O’Connor, J.,
filed a concurringopinion, in which
Kennedy, J.,
joined,
post,
p. 110.
Breyer, J.,
filed anopinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment,
post,
p. 111.
Stevens, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which
Sou-ter, J.,
joined as to Parts I, III, and IV, and
Ginsburg, J.,
joined as toPart III,
post,
p. 112.
Ginsburg, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in the judgment,
post,
p. 134.
Sanford M. Stein
argued the cause for petitioner. Withhim on the briefs was
Leo P. Dombrowski.David A. Strauss
argued the cause for respondent. Withhim on the brief were
James D. Brusslan
and
Stefan A. Noe.Irving L. Gornstein
argued the cause for the UnitedStates as
amicus curiae
urging affirmance. With him onthe brief were
Acting Solicitor General Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Deputy Solicitor General Wal-lace, James A. Feldman, Edward J. Shawaker,
and
MarkR. Haag.
*
*Briefs of 
amici curiae
urging reversal were filed for the AmericanForest & Paper Association, Inc., et al. by
Jan S. Amundson
and
QuentinRiegel;
for the American Iron & Steel Institute et al. by
Scott M. DuBoff 
,
Valerie J. Ughetta, Robin S. Conrad,
and
J. Walker Henry;
for the Chemi-cal Manufacturers Association by
James W. Conrad, Christina Franz,
and
Carter G. Phillips;
for the Clean Air Implementation Project by
WilliamH. Lewis, Jr.,
and
Michael A. McCord;
for the Mid-America Legal Founda-tion et al. by
James T. Harrington, William F. Moran III,
and
Gregory
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...