Subject category:
Ethics and Social Responsibility
Published by:
Harvard Kennedy School
Length: 12 pages
Share a link:
https://casecent.re/p/7239
Write a review
|
No reviews for this item
This product has not been used yet
Abstract
In December 1984, a federal trial judge held that William Ruckelshaus, head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in contempt of court for failing to issue emissions standards for radioactive air pollutants. Ruckelshaus argued that such standards would not yield public health benefits even close to the costs they would impose, but he found himself pressured by litigation filed by environmental groups. The case shows how law can constrain the actions of public officials acting in the regulatory process and serves as a vehicle for discussing the role of judges in policy implementation. Despite repeated judicial orders to compel him to issue standards, Ruckelshaus argued to the end that EPA''s own interpretation of the Clean Air Act did not require him to issue the standards. The case allows for a consideration of the legitimacy of judicial deference to federal agencies'' own interpretation of the laws they administer.
About
Abstract
In December 1984, a federal trial judge held that William Ruckelshaus, head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in contempt of court for failing to issue emissions standards for radioactive air pollutants. Ruckelshaus argued that such standards would not yield public health benefits even close to the costs they would impose, but he found himself pressured by litigation filed by environmental groups. The case shows how law can constrain the actions of public officials acting in the regulatory process and serves as a vehicle for discussing the role of judges in policy implementation. Despite repeated judicial orders to compel him to issue standards, Ruckelshaus argued to the end that EPA''s own interpretation of the Clean Air Act did not require him to issue the standards. The case allows for a consideration of the legitimacy of judicial deference to federal agencies'' own interpretation of the laws they administer.