In 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a nonprofit group’s environmental citizen suit because it found that a government agency was already diligently prosecuting the defendant. The decision provided an important procedural precedent because it changed the standard by which agency prosecution is reviewed during a motion to dismiss. The case highlights the public health and safety concerns created when government enforcement fails to induce industry to comply with pollution laws. It also highlights the obstacles that citizen suits must overcome when attempting to fill the gaps with private enforcement efforts. This Note examines the Third Circuit’s procedural ruling, and argues that courts should end the practice of presuming the diligence of agency enforcement during a motion to dismiss; instead, courts should make nonbiased, context-specific reviews of the adequacy of agency enforcement. This process will ensure that citizen suits are able to fulfill their role of stepping in when agency enforcement fails to protect public health and safety.
Adequate Agency Action? How Procedural Trends in Environmental Citizen Suit Litigation Prompt a Reconsideration of Deference and Presumptions of Diligence
