Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/49/
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 03:09:43
Document Index: 334378017

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 505', '§ 505', '§ 7604', '§ 6972', '§ 2619', '§ 505', '§ 1365', '§ 309', '§ 505', '§ 505', '§ 1365', '§ 505', '§ 505', '§ 505']

Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Found. :: 484 U.S. 49 (1987) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 484 › Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Found.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which STEVENS and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post at p. 484 U. S. 67.
Before the District Court reached a decision, Gwaltney moved in May, 1985, for dismissal of the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction under the Act. Gwaltney argued that the language of § 505(a), which permits private citizens to bring suit against any person "alleged to be in violation" of the Act, [Footnote 1] requires that a defendant be violating the Act at
It is well settled that "the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 447 U. S. 108 (1980). The Court of Appeals concluded that the "to be in violation" language of § 505 is ambiguous, whereas petitioner asserts that it plainly precludes the construction
Respondents urge that the choice of the phrase "to be in violation," rather than phrasing more clearly directed to the past, is a "careless accident," the result of a "debatable lapse of syntactical precision." Brief for Respondents 8. But the prospective orientation of that phrase could not have escaped Congress' attention. Congress used identical language in the citizen suit provisions of several other environmental statutes that authorize only prospective relief. See, e.g., Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (1982 ed. and Supp. III); Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2619 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). Moreover, Congress has demonstrated in yet other statutory provisions that it knows how to avoid this prospective implication by using language that explicitly targets wholly past violations. [Footnote 2]
Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 481 U. S. 425 (1987). In contrast, § 505 of the Act does not authorize civil penalties separately from injunctive relief; rather, the two forms of relief are referred to in the same subsection, even in the same sentence. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). The citizen suit provision suggests a connection between injunctive relief and civil penalties that is noticeably absent from the provision authorizing agency enforcement. A comparison of § 309 and § 505 thus
Any other conclusion would render incomprehensible § 505's notice provision, which requires citizens to give 60 days' notice of their intent to sue to the alleged violator, as well as to the Administrator and the State. § 1365(b)(1)(A). If the Administrator or the State commences enforcement action within that 60-day period, the citizen suit is barred, presumably because governmental action has rendered it unnecessary. [Footnote 3]
Ibid. The surrounding text strongly suggests that Senator Muskie used the past tense in order to make clear that an intermittent polluter -- one who violates permit limitations one month out of every three -- is just as much "in violation" of the Act as a continuous violator. His reference to "occasional or sporadic" violations cannot fairly be read to include "wholly past" violations, as respondents contend. Our understanding of Senator Muskie's written remarks is supported by the Senator's oral summary of his written views for his colleagues. In summarizing, Senator Muskie stated merely that "[c]itizen suits can be brought to enforce against both continuous and intermittent violations." Id. at 33693, 1 Leg.Hist. 163. Noticeably lacking here, too, is any reference to wholly past violations. Senator Muskie's remarks cannot bear the weight that respondents place on them. [Footnote 4]
Petitioner contends that failure to require proof of allegations under § 505 would permit plaintiffs whose allegations of ongoing violation are reasonable but untrue to maintain suit in federal court even though they lack constitutional standing. Petitioner reasons that, if a defendant is in complete compliance with the Act at the time of suit, plaintiffs have suffered no injury remediable by the citizen suit provisions of the Act. Petitioner, however, fails to recognize that our standing cases uniformly recognize that allegations of injury are sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a court. In Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 422 U. S. 501 (1975), for example, we made clear that a suit will not be dismissed for lack of standing if there are sufficient "allegations of fact" -- not proof -- in the complaint or supporting affidavits. [Footnote 5] This is not to say,
Section 505(a) states that "any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf . . . against any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation . . ." (emphasis added). There is of course nothing unusual in the proposition that only an allegation is required to commence a lawsuit. Proof is never required, and could not practicably be required, at that stage. From this clear and unexceptionable language of the statute, one of two further inferences can be made: (1) The inference the Court chooses, that the requirement for commencing a suit is the same as the requirement for maintaining it, or (2) the inference that, in order to maintain a suit the allegations that are required to commence it must, if contested, be proved. It seems to me that to favor the first inference over the second is to prefer the eccentric to the routine. It is well ingrained in the law that subject matter jurisdiction can be called into question either by challenging the sufficiency of the allegation or by challenging the accuracy of the jurisdictional facts alleged. See, e.g., Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 330 U. S. 735, n. 4 (1947); Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U. S. 442, 315 U. S. 446 (1942); KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269, 299 U. S. 278 (1936); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 298 U. S. 189 (1936). Had Congress intended us to eliminate the second form of challenge, and to create an extraordinary regime in which the jurisdictional fact consists of a good-faith belief, it seems to me it would have delivered those
In my view, therefore, the issue to be resolved by the Court of Appeals on remand of this suit is not whether the allegation of a continuing violation on the day suit was brought was made in good faith after reasonable inquiry, but whether petitioner was, in fact, "in violation" on the date suit was brought. The phrase in § 505(a), "to be in violation," unlike the phrase "to be violating" or "to have committed a violation," suggests a state, rather than an act -- the opposite of a state of compliance. A good or lucky day is not a state of compliance. Nor is the dubious state in which a past effluent problem is not recurring at the moment, but the cause of that problem has not been completely and clearly eradicated. When a company has violated an effluent standard or limitation, it remains, for purposes of § 505(a), "in violation" of that standard or limitation so long as it has not put in place remedial measures that clearly eliminate the cause of the violation. It does not suffice to defeat subject matter jurisdiction that the success of the attempted remedies becomes clear months or even weeks after the suit is filed. Subject matter jurisdiction "depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought"; if it existed when the suit was brought, "subsequent events" cannot "ous[t]" the court of jurisdiction. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 22 U. S. 539 (1824); see, e.g., Smith v. Sperling, 354 U. S. 91, 354 U. S. 93, n. 1 (1957); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283, 303 U. S. 289-290 (1938). It is this requirement of clarity of cure for a past violation, contained in the phrase "to be in violation," rather than a novel theory of subject matter jurisdiction by good-faith.allegation, that meets the Court's concern for "the practical difficulties of detecting and proving chronic episodic violations,'" ante at 484 U. S. 65, quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18.