Abstract
This Note examines how Article III standing doctrine applies to
private plaintiffs’ cost recovery actions under § 107(a)(4)(B) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. A review of judicial decisions reveals inconsistencies
in the analysis of injury in fact and traceability, and suggests that
current Article III standing doctrine is misaligned with its purported
objectives. In response, this Note proposes a structured framework
for assessing injury in fact and a refined approach to analyzing
traceability that distinguishes between different forms of causal
uncertainty. These doctrinal adjustments should better align case
outcomes with Article III standing doctrine’s constitutional and
pragmatic goals. In the environmental context, this translates to a
more robust remediation program and more effective cooperation
between regulators and private entities.
Recommended Citation
Jonathan M. Palacios,
Article III Standing for Cercla Private Cost Recovery Actions: How The Test's Strained Logic Belies Its Authority,
36 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev.
(2025).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/elr/vol36/iss2/4
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Admiralty Commons, Agency Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Air and Space Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Civil Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Construction Law Commons, Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Disaster Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, European Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Natural Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Torts Commons, Water Law Commons
