None of the citizen suit provisions of federal environmental laws bars a prevailing, for-profit corporate litigant from obtaining attorneys fees awards under those statutes' fee-shifting mechanisms. This is true even when a corporation brings the action to vindicate its own pecuniary interests rather than to benefit the public. In FallowfieldDevelopment Corp. v.

Can listed hazardous waste escape the requirements of Subtitle C¹ of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),² without being delisted, simply by being mixed with other material? Under the mixture rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued in 1980,³ the answer is no. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated the mixture rule in Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,⁴ and the U.S.

Has environmental law come of age? I think the answer, overall, may be yes. In many senses it has done so; we have made a transition from classic judicial review of administrative action in which environmental advocates such as David Sive, in cases such as the Scenic Hudson or Storm King Mountain case,¹ more or less successfully sought to expand and deepen that review. The purpose was essentially to have the concept of what was in the "public interest" broadened to include environmental matters.

Editors' Summary: Environmental litigation is witnessing an increasing number of claims for "stigma" damages, which arise when the value of real property decreases due to a public perception that the property is contaminated or threatened with contamination. In the past, courts generally eschewed awarding such damages in the absence of other actionable harm. Recent decisions, however, reveal that courts have begun to recognize stigma damages in new contexts.

The 104th Congress opened with great attention to the Republican "Contract With America" (the Contract), which the House leadership promised would pass the House of Representatives within the first 100 days. The Contract was first fleshed-out on January 4, 1995, when 10 bills were introduced.¹ After a flurry of legislative activity, rushed hearings, and abbreviated floor debate, the House fulfilled its promise to act on all 10 bills, finishing more than one week ahead of schedule.²

Editors' Summary: As environmental laws throughout the world impose stricter requirements on corporations, international organizations are increasingly emphasizing the importance of corporate environmental auditing programs. This Article examines the principal environmental auditing programs applicable to corporations doing business in Europe. First, it discusses the European Union's Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Next, it discusses environmental management standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization and the British Standards Institute.

Editors' Summary: In United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in 62 years struck down a federal statute on grounds that it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because it intruded into an area of traditional state concern and did not regulate a commercial activity, either directly or as part of a pervasive regulatory scheme. Although United States v.

Editors' Summary: In this first of a three-part series, the authors examine the history and general operation of the federal environmental crimes program. The authors first describe how an effective enforcement program emerged in the Justice Department and EPA despite various obstacles — including disagreements between and within the agencies about prosecutorial decisions — and how the program's history continues to influence decisions about what conduct EPA will investigate and what violations Justice will prosecute criminally.

The Republican takeover of Congress has triggered—and promises to continue triggering—a proliferation of suggestions from all political sectors for reforming our environmental regulatory system. So far, media attention has focused almost exclusively on generic proposals to require agencies to support new regulations with cost-benefit analysis and more "realistic" risk evaluation. Meanwhile, a completely different and equally broad-based approach has largely escaped notice.

Editors' Summary: As the increased use of automobiles in the United States has offset reductions in auto emissions, legislators and regulators have sought new ways to address air pollution from cars. As part of that search, they have devoted greater attention to the regulation of fuels. This Article analyzes the current federal fuels program and the regulatory and legislative developments that led up to it. The Article begins by discussing the regulation of fuel additives, which resulted in the elimination of lead from gasoline.