Supreme Court of the United States, 1975

Train v. Campaign Clean Water, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 18, 1975 · Douglas

420 U.S. 136; 95 S. Ct. 847; 43 L. Ed. 2d 82; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 105; 5 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20166 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Solicitor General Bork argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Hills, Deputy Solicitor General Friedman, Edmund W. Kitch, William L. Patton, Robert E. Kopp, Eloise E. Davies, and David M. Cohen., W. Thomas Jacks argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Alan B. Morrison.*

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Perez v. Abbott (District Court, W.D. Texas 2017)
Fairfax Nursing Center, Inc. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare (4th Cir. 1979)
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Clark v. Richardson (District Court, D. New Jersey 1977)
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (D.C. Cir. 1977)
ACTION ALLIANCE, SR. CIT. OF GR. PHILA., INC. v. Shapp (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
State of Iowa v. Brinegar (8th Cir. 1975)
State of Minnesota v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Robert W. Fri (8th Cir. 1975)
Iowa ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Brinegar (8th Cir. 1975)
Action Alliance for Senior Citizens v. Shapp (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
Gumper v. Biggane (New York Supreme Court 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*137 Pee Curiam.

On January 15, 1973, respondent filed a complaint in the District Court seeking to compel the petitioner, as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to allot among the States the full sums authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1973 and 1974 by § 207 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as added by the Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 839, 33 U. S. C. § 1287 (1970 ed., Supp. II), for federal grants to municipalities for construction of publicly owned waste treatment works. Although conceding in the trial court that the Administrator had a measure of discretion in making the allot *138 ments authorized by § 205 of the Act, 86 Stat. 837, 33 U. S. C. § 1285 (1970 ed., Supp. III), respondent asserted that the Administrator had abused his discretion by allotting only 45% of the sums authorized to be appropriated by § 207. In sustaining respondent’s position, the District Court rejected the holding by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in City of New York v. Ruckelshaus, 358 F. Supp. 669 (1973), that the Administrator has no discretion to allot less than the full amounts authorized by the Act. The Court of Appeals proceeded on the premise that there was discretion to control or delay allotments but concluded that further proceedings were essential to determine whether the Administrator’s discretion had been abused. The Administrator petitioned for certiorari, asserting that the exercise of his discretion to allot funds under § 205 is not subject to judicial review. * We granted certiorari, 416 U. S. 969 (1974), and heard the case with Train v. City of New York, ante, p. 35.

We held in Train v. City of New York that the Administrator has no authority under § 205 to allot less than the full amounts sought to be appropriated under § 207. Because that holding is at odds with the premise underlying the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the opinion in Train v. City of New York.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result.

The petition also asserted that the doctrine of sovereign immunity foreclosed ordering the Administrator to allot funds that he had withheld in the course of exercising his discretion under the Act. In light of Train v. City of New York, ante, p. 35, and our disposition of the instant case, we need not address this question.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.