Friends of the Earth Urges Consensus, Pro-Environment Nominee for Nation’s Highest Court

Statement of Brent Blackwelder, President

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gives President Bush an historic opportunity to unite the country by choosing a consensus nominee who will uphold the right of all Americans to drink clean water, breathe clean air and enjoy protected ecosystems.  The president should consult with the Senate and choose a nominee who will exercise independent judgment and make America proud.

An overwhelming majority of Americans support strong environmental laws.  A consensus nominee would recognize the critical role that the federal government plays in ensuring that all Americans have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and healthy ecosystems to enjoy. 

Unfortunately, President Bush has suggested he’ll model future nominees on Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—judges who have argued against strong federal environmental laws and even sought to deprive Americans of the right to sue polluters.  Placing more judges like them on the Court could create an anti-environment majority that dismantles decades of environmental progress, stripping Congress of its constitutional authority to protect our air, land and water.

A look at some of the Court’s recent decisions shows just what’s at stake:

Clean water. Friends of the Earth won a landmark decision in 2000, when the Court upheld the right of citizens to sue polluting companies who violate the Clean Water Act.  Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, and an anti-environment majority could strip ordinary Americans of the ability to hold polluters accountable.

Clean air.  An anti-environment majority could strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the ability to ensure clean air for all Americans.  Justice O’Connor was the deciding vote in a case that upheld EPA’s authority to prevent harmful air pollution when state agencies improperly fail to do so. 

Habitat protection.  An anti-environment majority could restrict the federal government’s ability to protect endangered species and their habitat.  Justice O’Connor concurred with the majority in a decision that upheld prohibitions against habitat destruction that would harm endangered species.  Justices Scalia and Thomas would have invalidated the prohibition, putting endangered and threatened species further at risk.

Protecting the environment has been challenging during the past four years, as an increasingly partisan Congress and White House attempt to reverse three decades of environmental progress.  The courts have provided a breath of fresh air during this time, serving as an independent voice for enforcing the laws that protect our environment.  It’s troubling that according to recent press reports, some businesses have formed a coalition to urge the president to nominate a judge who opposes regulation of corporations—at a time when protection of our health and environment depends to an even greater extent on the willingness of courts to enforce environmental regulations.  It’s critical that the Court remain an independent body that upholds the rights of all Americans—no less than our water, our air and our land depends on it.