Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01656/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01656-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carol M. Browner
Respondent
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Independent Refiners Coalition
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed January 29, 1999

No. 97-1651

George E. Warren Corporation,

Petitioner

v.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

Carol M. Browner, Administrator,

Respondents

Friends of the Earth, et al.,

Intervenors

Consolidated with

97-1656

On Petitions for Review of an Order of the

Environmental Protection Agency

---------

Before: Ginsburg, Sentelle, and Rogers, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the EPA's Motion To Clarify and

Amend the Court's Opinion With Respect to the Issue of

Prudential Standing [159 F.3d 616 (1998)] and of the responsive pleadings filed with respect thereto, it is

ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted, and

the opinion is amended as follows:

USCA Case #97-1656 Document #412834 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

At pages 620-21: Delete the two paragraphs immediately

following the heading "A. Justiciability," as well as the first

word of the third paragraph: "Second."

The material now to be omitted was based upon the

erroneous belief that the petition for review had been filed

under 42 U.S.C. s 7604(a), when in fact it was filed under 42

U.S.C. s 7607(b)(1). We need not, however, revisit the issue

whether the Independent Refiners Coalition had prudential

standing under the latter provision.

Although Article III precludes us from deciding a matter

on the merits before determining that the party presenting it

has constitutional standing to do so, see Steel Co. v. Citizens

for a Better Env't, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1016 (1998), there is no

such barrier to deciding a matter on the merits before

determining that the party presenting it has prudential standing. See id. at 1013 & n.2 (citing National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Ass'n of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S.

453, 465 n.13 (1974)). Having already rejected the IRC's

claims on their merits, therefore, we need not now retrospectively decide whether it had prudential standing to bring

those claims--though it is unlikely we would have proceeded

in this manner going forward. See Busse Broadcasting Corp.

v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1456, 1462-63 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (presenting

rare case in which appropriate to decide merits before prudential standing).

So ordered.

USCA Case #97-1656 Document #412834 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 2 of 2