Eli Lilly & Co. v. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
Headline: High court declines review in EPA rulemaking dispute, leaving the First Circuit’s finding that the agency did not have to offer a new public-comment period after major changes in place.
Holding: The Court declined to review the appeal and left intact the First Circuit’s ruling that the EPA complied with notice-and-comment requirements, denying further Supreme Court review of the agency’s changed regulations.
- Leaves First Circuit ruling that EPA complied with notice-and-comment requirements in place.
- Keeps unresolved whether agencies must republish substantially changed rules for additional public comment.
- Signals the issue will recur and may need future Supreme Court review, per dissenting justice.
Summary
Background
Eli Lilly and Company asked the Supreme Court to review a First Circuit decision that upheld regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, Douglas M. Costle. The company argued that the EPA first published interim effluent rules and then substantially changed those rules without giving the public another chance to comment. The Supreme Court denied the petition and did not take up the case.
Reasoning
The central question is whether an agency that publishes a rule for public comment and then makes very substantial changes must publish the revised rule to allow another round of public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. The First Circuit concluded that the EPA had complied with the Act, a conclusion described in that court’s opinion as grounded in informed, expert decisionmaking tested by public comment. The Supreme Court’s denial leaves the First Circuit’s careful analysis intact but does not resolve the broader legal question.
Real world impact
By denying review, the Supreme Court left the lower-court judgment in place, so the immediate challenge to these EPA regulations is not taken up by this Court. The larger question about when agencies must republish changed rules for new comment remains unresolved nationally. Because this was a denial of review rather than a final ruling on the legal question, future cases may still ask the high court to settle the issue.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Powell, dissented from the denial and would have granted review limited to whether the APA required an additional public-comment opportunity after substantial rule changes. The dissent emphasized the question’s recurring and increasing importance.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?