Loading...
Louisiana’s attorney general, Jeff Landry, recently filed a sweeping lawsuit that aims to dismantle hard-won legal protections against systemic racism. The lawsuit, filed on May 24, targets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice, and President Joe Biden, alleging violations of the Constitution, the Clean Air Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The complaint comes on the heels of two significant U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have significantly limited the EPA’s regulatory power. Additionally, it aligns with conservatives’ longstanding objective of dismantling federal agencies responsible for regulating businesses.
Landry’s lawsuit is a response to the federal government’s unprecedented efforts to address the disproportionate impact of waste and industrial pollution on minority communities. In November 2021, the Biden administration launched a concerted enforcement campaign to address environmental injustice, utilizing rarely invoked authorities to promote environmental justice in states like Alabama and Texas.
As part of this initiative, the EPA began investigating administrative complaints concerning decisions made by Louisiana’s health agencies regarding a region referred to as “cancer alley.” This region, located between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, is known for its numerous petrochemical facilities and the associated health risks faced by its residents. The complaints were filed by Tulane University Law School and advocacy groups on behalf of individuals living in “cancer alley.”
Let LawCrossing help you achieve your full potential – sign up today.
Unlike previous cases that primarily addressed intentional discrimination, the EPA’s actions focus on regulations that disparately impact minority communities. Disparate impact refers to discriminatory effects without explicit intent. The EPA’s enforcement of these regulations, rooted in federal laws and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, represents a significant departure from historical practices that have predominantly focused on discrimination in housing and education.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Landry’s lawsuit, however, does not challenge any specific actions or inactions by the EPA thus far. Instead, it seeks to challenge the fundamental structure and enforcement procedures of the EPA and other public interest agencies. The complaint alleges various constitutional violations, including the claim that the EPA unlawfully relinquished its powers to private interest groups. It also invokes the “major questions doctrine,” a legal theory often used by conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices to invalidate progressive policies.
Of particular concern is the lawsuit’s attack on disparate impact regulations that have been in place for over half a century throughout the federal government. The complaint argues that addressing bias without concrete evidence of intent exceeds the executive branch’s authority. It cites the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, which questioned the validity of disparate impact regulations but affirmed federal agencies’ responsibility to enforce them.
While some may view Landry’s lawsuit as political posturing, it has the potential to undermine essential civil rights protections. The case is not without challenges, but its potential impact should not be dismissed. Conservative efforts to limit discrimination liability to intentional acts have been ongoing for decades, with previous administrations also attempting to roll back disparate impact standards.
The filing of the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which Republican-appointed judges dominate, further suggests a favorable environment for conservative positions. Landry and other Republican attorneys general have strategically chosen this jurisdiction for lawsuits challenging Biden’s policies, increasing their chances of success.
Despite the questionable merit of Landry’s lawsuit, it sheds light on the future trajectory of litigation surrounding disparate impact theory. While the Supreme Court upheld disparate impact on narrow grounds in 2015, the current conservative majority on the Court raises concerns about the potential erosion of these protections.
Louisiana’s attorney general’s lawsuit poses a significant threat to civil rights protections. By challenging disparate impact regulations and the authority of federal agencies, the lawsuit seeks to undermine efforts to address systemic racism and environmental injustice. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for minority communities and the future of civil rights enforcement.
