We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The recent decision on federal health care legislation is not
the only surprise coming from the United States Supreme Court
recently. In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Southern
Union Company vs. USA, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2012 WL 2344465 (June
21, 2012), overturned an $18 million fine entered in a criminal
enforcement case for alleged hazardous waste violations lodged
against a pipeline operator under the Federal Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In an interesting alignment of Justices (Justice Sotomayor wrote
the opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts as well as
Justices Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Kagan), the Court ruled the
Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to all facts that
apply to the imposition of a fine, as well as to imprisonment. In
particular, the Court ruled that the "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard applies to all facts that are necessary
predicates to the imposition of fines in a criminal case.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court applied the standard
established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, to
the imposition of fines, as well as jail time, in criminal cases.
In Apprendi, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment
requires that any fact that increases the maximum punishment must
be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In a case of first
impression, the Court in Southern Union ruled that the
Apprendi doctrine applies to the imposition of fines, and
not just to the imposition of jail time, in this RCRA criminal
case.
In Southern Union, the trial court jury found that the
company's hazardous waste storage practices violated RCRA, but
the judge, not the jury, imposed the $18 million fine based upon a
judicial finding that the company was in violation of RCRA for 762
days. These facts about the alleged continuing nature of the
violation, as well as the fact of violation, are all facts that are
the necessary predicates for the imposition of the fine. According
to the Court in Southern Union, all of these facts must be
found by a jury, and not a judge in a criminal prosecution under
RCRA to preserve the Sixth Amendment right to a jury in criminal
cases.
While this case was decided under narrow facts arising under the
federal hazardous waste laws, the impacts of this decision could be
very significant. These impacts could include the following:
A higher burden of proof for the federal (and state) government
when alleging the total amount of fines that are appropriate in
criminal enforcement cases.
While this case was decided under RCRA, it is reasonable to
assume that the case will have far-reaching impact in the area of
criminal enforcement under all of the major federal as well as
state environmental laws including, but not limited to, the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act,
etc.
It could change the way state and federal agencies seek to
calculate fines in criminal cases, making it much more difficult to
seek significant fines in such cases.
It will force the government to grapple with proving the exact
number of days that environmental violations continued under a very
exacting "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, rather
than the broader discretion previously exercised by trial court
judges, in making the amount of fine determinations in such
criminal cases.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
