•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 123 > Issue 5 (2025)

 

Abstract

Despite repeated promises by Democratic presidents to address environmental justice (EJ), meaningful federal action on the issue remains elusive. The EJ obligations that have been imposed on federal agencies are all purely procedural, not substantive. Such procedural obligations—like filing environmental impact statements and providing forums for community feedback—may facilitate greater transparency and accountability from industry and government agencies. But in the absence of more substantive obligations—like stricter emissions caps in highly burdened communities of color—these procedural requirements are often satisfied through mere box-checking. Meanwhile, litigants pursuing relief through the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause face closed courthouse doors unless they can show “discriminatory intent”—a nearly impossible task. And despite Title VI’s promises of anti-discrimination, litigants’ Title VI claims are subject to long delays, industry-friendly settlements, and looming existential threats by a federal judiciary and a new presidential administration increasingly skeptical of—if not even outright hostile to—both environmental remediation and race-conscious policymaking. But with the federal government on the sidelines, there is enormous opportunity at the state level. A recent fight over an asphalt plant outside Flint, Michigan, demonstrates that state environmental agencies may have expansive—though largely untapped—power to address environmental injustice through the permitting process. This Note analyzes state and federal administrative law to provide a case study on how state agencies can fill the massive gap in EJ enforcement and fulfill the unkept promises of past federal administrations.

Download

Share

COinS