Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court has declined review of a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling holding that the Environmental Protection Agency's use of unilateral administrative orders to enforce Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 106 does not violate a potentially responsible party's (PRP) right to due process (General Electric Co. v. Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-871, U.S. Sup.; See July 2010, Page 15).
General Electric Co. (GE) claimed in its 2000 lawsuit against EPA administrator Lisa Jackson that the agency's use of unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) to take adjudicatory action in non-emergency situations violated its right to due process because the EPA does not allow recipients of the orders to challenge them through a pre-deprivation hearing and does not allow for post-deprivation review. According to GE, the EPA's use of UAOs to impose financial costs on a recipient can put some out of business because they require payments of millions of dollars without opportunity for a hearing.
In January 2009, U.S. Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia District Court denied GE's motion for summary judgment and awarded summary judgment to the agency after finding that its use of UAOs was not arbitrary and capricious and did not violate a recipient's right to due process. A panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed Judge Bates' ruling on June 29, 2010, explaining that agency's use of UAOs does not violate a PRP's right to due process because PRPs have the option of not complying with the order. GE then filed a petition for an en banc hearing, which was denied Sept. 30.
The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 29, and the petition was considered during the high court's June 2 conference.
[Editor's Note: Full coverage will be in the June issue. For all of your legal news needs, please visit Mealey's Legal News & Litigation Reports.]
For more information, call editor Shane Dilworth at 215-988-7725, or e-mail him at Shane.Dilworth@lexisnexis.com.
Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey's Publications.
Non-subscribers may search for Mealey's Publications stories and documents at Mealey's Online Research Service or visit Mealey's.com.
Lexis.com subscribers can access the Lexis enhanced version of the GE v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2010) decision with summary, headnotes, and Shepard's.
Non subscribers can access the free unenhanced version of the GE v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2010) decision available from lexisONE Free Case law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.