General Elec. Co. v. Jackson
610 F.3d 110 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory scheme that allows an agency to issue cleanup orders without a pre-issuance hearing does not violate due process if judicial review is available before any penalties are imposed. Financial harms resulting from market reactions to such orders are consequential injuries, not deprivations of a protected property interest under the Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), has the authority to issue unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) to parties it deems responsible for hazardous waste sites, directing them to conduct cleanups.
- From 1947 to 1977, two of General Electric's (GE) manufacturing plants discharged polychlorinated biphenyls into the Hudson River.
- Over the years, the EPA has issued at least 68 UAOs to GE for various sites.
- The EPA reserved the right to issue a UAO to GE for the massive Hudson River cleanup project.
- GE asserts that the mere issuance of a UAO causes it immediate and irreparable harm by depressing its stock price, damaging its brand value, and increasing its cost of financing.
Procedural Posture:
- General Electric (GE) filed suit against the EPA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that CERCLA's UAO provisions are unconstitutional on their face and as applied.
- The district court dismissed GE's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was a pre-enforcement challenge barred by CERCLA section 113(h).
- GE appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which reversed the dismissal, holding that section 113(h) did not bar a facial constitutional challenge to the statute itself.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the EPA on GE's facial challenge.
- The district court allowed GE's 'pattern and practice' challenge to proceed to discovery.
- Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the EPA on the 'pattern and practice' challenge as well.
- GE appealed both summary judgment decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unilateral administrative order (UAO) regime under CERCLA, which allows the EPA to issue cleanup orders without a pre-issuance hearing, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by either coercing compliance through the threat of severe penalties or by causing immediate harm to a company's financial standing and reputation?
Opinions:
Majority - Tatel, Circuit Judge
No. The UAO regime under CERCLA does not violate the Due Process Clause. The court rejected GE's argument that the threat of severe fines creates a 'Hobson's choice' that unconstitutionally chills the right to judicial review. A party can obtain a pre-deprivation hearing by refusing to comply with the UAO, thereby forcing the EPA to initiate an enforcement action in federal court. This option is a meaningful safeguard because penalties are not automatic; a court may only impose them after finding a party 'willfully' failed to comply 'without sufficient cause,' and even then, the court has discretion. This 'sufficient cause' provision acts as a good faith defense that satisfies the standard set in Ex Parte Young. Furthermore, alleged harms to stock price, brand value, and credit rating are 'consequential injuries' resulting from independent market reactions, not direct deprivations of property by the government. Under the 'stigma-plus' doctrine from Paul v. Davis, reputational harm alone does not trigger due process protections without the government also extinguishing a more tangible, legally recognized right, which GE did not allege had occurred.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of administrative enforcement schemes that defer judicial review until the enforcement stage, provided there are adequate safeguards like a 'good faith' or 'sufficient cause' defense against penalties. It sharply distinguishes between direct deprivations of property, like a lien, and indirect 'consequential' harms flowing from government action that causes reputational damage. The ruling reinforces the high bar of the 'stigma-plus' test, clarifying that negative market reactions to a government finding, without more, do not trigger due process protections. This gives agencies like the EPA significant latitude to issue compliance orders without the burden of pre-issuance hearings, prioritizing swift administrative action.
Unlock the full brief for General Elec. Co. v. Jackson