Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

PETITIONER: Train
RESPONDENT: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
LOCATION: Republic of Cuba

DOCKET NO.: 73-1742
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 421 US 60 (1975)
ARGUED: Jan 15, 1975
DECIDED: Apr 16, 1975

ADVOCATES:
Gerald P. Norton - argued the cause for the petitioners
John Hardin Young - for American Iron and Steel Institute as amicus curiae
Max N. Edwards - for American Iron and Steel Institute as amicus curiae
Richard E. Ayres - argued the cause for the respondents

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 15, 1975 in Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 16, 1975 in Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in No. 73-1742, Train Administrator against Natural Resources Defense Council will be announced by Mr. Justice Rehnquist.

William H. Rehnquist:

This case involves a construction of the Clean Air Act and comes to us from the Court of Appeals from the Fifth Circuit.

The Clean Air Act requires that each state adopt the plan for attaining and maintaining national standards for the quality of air within its borders.

The state plan details the limitations on air population with which particular sources within the state must comply.

The present case has required us to determine the conditions under which the Clean Air Act permits sources of population to obtain variances from the population limitations which are imposed on them by a state plan.

For reasons set out at length in the opinion, we concluded that variances may be granted under Section 110 (a) (3) of the Act which governs revisions of state plans if the plan nonetheless concludes to provide for the attainment and maintenance of national air quality standard.

This was the adoption of the regulation originally promulgated by the EPA, the Fifth Circuit set it aside.

The Fifth Circuit was wrong in doing so and we reverse the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. Justice Douglas has noted his dissent.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Justice Rehnquist.