Hancock v. Train

PETITIONER: Hancock
RESPONDENT: Train
LOCATION: District Attorney’s Office, County of Los Angeles

DOCKET NO.: 74-220
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

CITATION: 426 US 167 (1976)
ARGUED: Jan 13, 1976
DECIDED: Jun 07, 1976

ADVOCATES:
David D. Beals - for petitioner
Daniel M. Friedman - for respondents

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Hancock v. Train

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 13, 1976 in Hancock v. Train

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 07, 1976 in Hancock v. Train

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Justice White has four opinions, judgments and opinions to announce for the Court and will identify each of them with his announcement.

Byron R. White:

The first of the cases I have for 74-220, Hancock, the Attorney General of Kentucky against Train, the Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency and 74-1435, Environmental Protection Agency against the California State Water Resources Control Board.

These cases are related one to the other, and they arise under recent amendments to the Clean Air Act and to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The issue in both cases is whether installations and facilities must not only comply with pollution standards set by a state plan that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, but whether the facilities must also secure a permit which the state plan requires.

In the Hancock case, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was not sufficiently clear under the Clean Air Act that the federal installations must secure permits, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arrived at just the contrary conclusion under the Federal Water Act.

We agree with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and affirm its judgment and we disagree with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and reverse its judgment.

The reasons for our conclusions are set out in rather long opinions which we have filed today.

Mr. Justices Stewart and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent for the reasons stated by the respective Courts of Appeals.