Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environment Services

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Constitutional Law

528 U.S. 167 (2000)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawArticle III standingmootnessClean Water Act citizen suitsArticle IIIstandingvoluntary cessationredressability

Facts

Laidlaw operated a facility discharging treated wastewater into the North Tyger River under an NPDES permit that limited pollutants including mercury. The district court found hundreds of permit violations, including 489 mercury violations between 1987 and 1995, and additional violations after the suit was filed. Members of the plaintiff organizations submitted affidavits and testimony that they avoided fishing, swimming, picnicking, hiking, canoeing, and other uses of the river and nearby areas because of concern about Laidlaw's ongoing discharges, and one member claimed diminished home value. After the suit began, Laidlaw achieved substantial compliance, so the district court denied injunctive relief but imposed a $405,800 civil penalty for deterrence.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff organizations had Article III standing to bring a Clean Water Act citizen suit based on members' curtailed recreational, aesthetic, and economic uses of the affected area, and whether the case became moot when Laidlaw came into substantial compliance after the litigation began and only civil penalties remained at issue.

Rule

For Article III standing, a plaintiff must show injury in fact, traceability, and redressability. In a Clean Water Act citizen suit alleging ongoing violations at the time of filing, injury in fact may be shown by reasonable concerns about discharges that directly lessen members' recreational, aesthetic, or economic interests, and civil penalties payable to the Treasury can satisfy redressability because their deterrent effect may abate current violations and prevent future ones. A defendant's voluntary cessation of challenged conduct moots a case only if subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur, and the defendant bears that heavy burden.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A nonprofit in Ohio sues a plating plant in Toledo under a federal water-pollution citizen-suit provision, alleging permit exceedances were ongoing when suit was filed. Two members submit declarations stating they stopped kayaking and riverside birdwatching on a nearby stretch of river because they reasonably feared the unlawful discharges made the area unsafe and unpleasant, even though no study in the record proves measurable ecological damage.

Do the members' declarations most likely establish injury in fact for Article III purposes?

Explanation. The majority held that the relevant injury is injury to the plaintiff, not proven injury to the environment. Members who use the affected area and reasonably refrain from recreational or aesthetic activities because of ongoing unlawful discharges suffer a concrete, particularized injury in fact. Scientific proof of ecological harm is not required where the plaintiffs' own use and enjoyment are directly lessened.