A federal judge has barred the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using the Civil Rights Act to prevent Louisiana from granting permits for facilities in minority and low-income communities that pollute the air and water.
The Civil Rights Act allows the EPA to investigate whether state-level programs that receive federal money are discriminating based on race. The agency can take action against deliberately discriminatory actions but this is one instance where the "disparate outcome" view of racism doesn't hold.
“Residents were already struggling because of the disproportionate exposure to environmental harms in Louisiana," says Debbie Chizewer, an attorney at Earthjustice. "This leaves them unprotected.”
Bull crap. Any company that pollutes anywhere is subject to the same clean air and clean water laws and regulations regardless of whether the polluter is in a low-income neighborhood or not. What the federal judge is saying is that you can't use the "disparate outcome" theory of racial justice in this instance to tap the state for "damages."
The EPA issued a statement saying they “remain committed to enforcing civil rights law, consistent with the court’s order” and said they would work to determine the “next steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the programs and activities our agencies fund.”
The question that courts should be asking is why the EPA is allowing these polluters to continue to operate when their businesses are adversely affecting the health of anyone; black, white, brown, yellow or red?
In April, Republican attorneys general from 23 states petitioned the E.P.A. to stop taking race into account when regulating pollution, underscoring opposition in Republican states to the Biden administration’s agenda. The administration has made environmental justice, or addressing the unequal burden that low-income and minority communities face from environmental hazards, a top priority.
The case stems from a 2022 E.P.A. investigation into whether Louisiana had violated civil rights laws by permitting scores of industrial facilities to operate in and around St. John the Baptist Parish, a predominantly Black community.
The EPA has full authority to shut down any company that pollutes. So either the EPA can't make a case that the companies are polluting (extremely doubtful), or the companies are not in violation of the law.
The state of Louisiana was negotiating (at the point of a gun) with Washington to change the air pollution permitting program that would have forced the state to make permitting decisions based mostly on race. When it became clear that Washington wasn't budging, the state attorney general from Louisiana sued.
The federal government tried to get Louisiana's suit dismissed but the judge would have none of that.
Judge James Cain ruled that Louisiana had a right to “unambiguous clarity concerning Defendants’ power to regulate beyond the plain text of Title VI.”
The Biden administration has sought ways to work around the courts on curbing environmental hazards in communities that surround industrial sites, primarily by enforcing aggressive new regulations.
In April, for example, the E.P.A. issued new a new rule requiring more than 200 chemical plants across the country to reduce the toxic pollutants they release into the air. It was the first time in nearly two decades that the government had tightened limits on pollution from chemical plants, and it came after Michael S. Regan, the administrator of the E.P.A., traveled to St. John the Baptist Parish.
“I saw firsthand how the multigenerational and widespread effects of pollution were affecting the health of the local community,” Mr. Regan said.
So why make it a racial issue? Why not simply make it an issue of public health or good environmental policy?
The reason is there are no votes in making the issue an environmental issue. Slap "civil rights" on the case and you have an army of left-wing zealots clamoring for "justice."
