“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The owner of a California landfill sued several state agencies for allegedly generating hazardous waste harming its property, in violation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
What happened in this case?
Forward, Inc. owns a landfill near Stockton, California that has been subject to a local agency’s cleanup orders due to grounwater contamination from the site. Forward believes that state facilities adjacent to the property were “leeching hazardous waste into the groundwater” and filed suit in federal court under RCRA against several state officials with authority over the state facilities.
The district court dismissed the suit. It held that the facts as alleged did not show that the officials had responsibility for the waste disposal at the state facilities. Forward appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
In a 2-1 decision made possible by Trump judge Patrick Bumatay, Obama judge John Owens wrote that Forward had not established or alleged the “fairly direct” connection between the state officers and the RCRA violation required to avoid sovereign immunity. Clinton judge Ronald Gould dissented from the April decision in Forward v Macomber.
Why did Judge Gould dissent?
Judge Gould explained that the necessary “fairly direct” connection had been established through Forward’s contention that the named state officials had control over the agencies and their operations. Requiring more than this at the preliminary stages of a lawsuit before discovery, Gould wrote, “creates a dangerous loophole allowing state facilities to pollute willy-nilly and without consequence in violation of federal environmental laws.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling made possible by Trump judge Bumatay obviously harms Forward’s efforts to stop state agencies from causing the pollution that is harming its landfill. It also sets a dangerous precedent that may well allow state agency violation of federal environmental laws in the future, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.