top of page

Environmental Civil Rights Protections For Black Communities In Louisiana Permanently Blocked By Court


A U.S. District Court in Louisiana has issued a permanent injunction preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to influence Louisiana's regulation of polluting facilities. The ruling, made by Judge James Cain, a Trump appointee, has sparked significant concern among environmental advocates.


EarthJustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, criticized the ruling, arguing that it effectively allows companies to continue polluting predominantly Black and Latinx communities in Louisiana. Patrice Simms, EarthJustice’s vice president for healthy communities, stated, "Louisiana has given industrial polluters open license to poison Black and brown communities for generations, only to now have one court give it a permanent free pass to abandon its responsibilities.” He emphasized that residents in these communities deserve the same Title VI protections as others across the nation.


The EPA responded by stating that it would continue to enforce civil rights law in accordance with the court’s order, despite the ruling. The issue is particularly significant in light of the EPA's recent efforts to address pollution complaints in Louisiana's Cancer Alley, a predominantly Black area along the Mississippi River with numerous chemical plants. These efforts began gaining traction after President Joe Biden's election, with the EPA investigating the area for potential civil rights violations.


However, the progress was halted when then-Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, now the governor, sued the EPA to prevent it from pursuing these investigations, leading to the recent court decision. Debbie Chizewer, an attorney at EarthJustice, warned that this ruling could set a precedent for other states if they pursue similar legal arguments. She noted, “If another state filed a case using the same theories, they will point to this case as persuasive authority for another court to consider.”


Kommentare


bottom of page