Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/136/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:44:47+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 420 › Train v. Campaign Clean Water, Inc.
In respondent's action to compel petitioner Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to allot among the States the full sums authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1973 and 1974 by § 207 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 for municipal waste treatment plants, the District Court held that the Administrator had abused his discretion by allotting only 45% of the authorized sums. The Court of Appeals, on the premise that there was discretion to control or delay allotments, concluded that further proceedings were essential to determine whether that discretion had been abused.
Held: Since the holding in Train v. City of New York, ante, p. 420 U. S. 35, that the Administrator has no authority to allot less than the full amounts authorized to be appropriated under § 207, is at odds with the Court of Appeals' premise, that court's judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with Train v. City of New York.
authorized by § 205 of the Act, 86 Stat. 837, 33 U.S.C. § 1285 (1970 ed., Supp. III), respondent asserted that the Administrator had abused his discretion by allotting only 45% of the sums authorized to be appropriated by § 207. In sustaining respondent's position, the District Court rejected the holding by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in City of New York v. Ruckelshaus, 358 F.Supp. 669 (1973), that the Administrator has no discretion to allot less than the full amounts authorized by the Act. The Court of Appeals proceeded on the premise that there was discretion to control or delay allotments, but concluded that further proceedings were essential to determine whether the Administrator's discretion had been abused. The Administrator petitioned for certiorari, asserting that the exercise of his discretion to allot funds under § 205 is not subject to judicial review. * We granted certiorari, 416 U.S. 969 (1974), and heard the case with Train v. City of New York, ante, p. 420 U. S. 35.
We held in Train v. City of New York that the Administrator has no authority under § 205 to allot less than the full amounts sought to be appropriated under § 207. Because that holding is at odds with the premise underlying the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the opinion in Train v. City of New York.
* The petition also asserted that the doctrine of sovereign immunity foreclosed ordering the Administrator to allot funds that he had withheld in the course of exercising his discretion under the Act. In light of Train v. City of New York, ante, p. 420 U. S. 35, and our disposition of the instant case, we need not address this question.

References: v. 
 § 207
 v. 
 § 207
 v. 
 § 205
 § 1285
 § 207
 v. 
 § 205
 v. 
 v. 
 § 205
 § 207
 v. 
 v.