5 Shocking Reasons America's Environmental Justice Laws Fail to Protect the Vulnerable

Introduction: The Promise vs. The Reality

In 1970, the United States passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a landmark law built on a powerful promise: to "assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings." This was meant to be a foundational guarantee, ensuring that the federal government's actions would not come at the cost of the public's well-being or the environment we all share.

Yet, for more than half a century, this promise has often rung hollow, particularly for marginalized and low-income communities. Despite the law's noble intentions, these communities have consistently borne a disproportionate share of environmental harm, from polluting industrial facilities in their backyards to disruptive infrastructure projects slicing through their neighborhoods. This disparity is the central focus of the environmental justice movement, which advocates for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development and enforcement of environmental laws.

While various presidential administrations have attempted to weave environmental justice into federal policy, the system itself contains fundamental flaws that prevent these efforts from being truly effective. The protections that seem robust on paper often crumble under legal and political pressure. This article uncovers five of the most surprising and impactful reasons why America's environmental justice laws often provide only an illusion of protection.

1. Environmental Protection Is a Political Pendulum

A community's protection from environmental harm can depend entirely on who is president. The federal government’s commitment to environmental justice is not a stable, legally-mandated constant but a policy preference that swings dramatically with each new administration. This inconsistency creates a state of uncertainty for vulnerable communities, where hard-won progress can be erased overnight.

The history of this political pendulum is clear. The Clinton administration made environmental justice a federal priority with its landmark Executive Order 12898 in 1994. The subsequent Bush administration, however, deprioritized these initiatives, often through significant budget cuts. The Obama administration worked to revitalize these efforts with initiatives like Plan EJ 2014, only for the Trump administration to reverse course again, focusing on deregulation and expediting project reviews in a way that weakened protections. The Biden administration has again bolstered federal commitments through Executive Orders 14,008 and 14,096.

This constant shifting of priorities has real-world consequences, a fact acknowledged even by the courts. In the case concerning the Dakota Access Pipeline, the judge noted the stark impact of a new administration on the government's legal stance:

"elections have consequences, and the government's position … shifted significantly once President Trump assumed office on January 20, 2017"

This political volatility is deeply damaging, leaving communities' futures dependent on the outcome of an election cycle, turning basic environmental safety into a political prize rather than a legal right.

2. The Law Only Requires a "Look," Not a Fair Outcome

Here is one of the most counter-intuitive truths about America's primary environmental law: NEPA is a procedural law, not a substantive one. In simple terms, this means the law legally forces federal agencies to study and report on the potential environmental impacts of a project—to take a "hard look"—but it does not legally require them to choose the least damaging or most equitable option.

An agency can conduct a perfect, thorough analysis that concludes a project will disproportionately harm a low-income community, and then approve that project anyway without violating NEPA. It's a bait-and-switch written into federal law: a statute designed to protect the environment has no actual power to prevent environmental destruction. Its only mandate is to generate paperwork.

In case after case, from Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA to Coliseum Square Ass'n v. Jackson, federal courts have reinforced this procedural limitation, ruling that their job is not to ensure a fair outcome, but only to verify that the agency ticked the right boxes.

3. A Bizarre Legal Loophole: Ignoring the Problem Is Safer Than Studying It

The legal framework surrounding environmental justice has created a bizarre "Catch-22" that gives federal agencies an incentive to do less, not more. The issue stems from how courts review agency decisions under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard.

According to a key ruling in City of Dallas v. Hall, if a federal agency chooses to include an environmental justice study in its NEPA analysis, that study can be challenged in court. Opponents can sue, arguing the analysis was flawed or incomplete, opening the agency to legal risk.

Here is the shocking part of that ruling: if an agency simply chooses not to include an environmental justice study at all, that omission—the complete lack of information—is not subject to the court's review. This loophole creates a perverse incentive for agencies to remain ignorant. Legally, it is safer to not look for injustice at all than it is to look for it and conduct an imperfect analysis.

4. The "Groundbreaking" Executive Order Has No Legal Teeth

Executive Order 12898, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the foundational document for environmental justice in federal policy. It directed agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their core mission. On its face, it sounds powerful and decisive. However, buried deep within Section 6-609 of the order is a clause that intentionally strips it of any real enforcement power, stating in no uncertain terms:

"this order shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the United States."

This means that a community cannot sue the government for failing to follow the executive order. Courts have repeatedly confirmed this limitation. In cases like Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA and Coliseum Square Ass'n v. Jackson, judges ruled that the executive order does not create a private right to action or any legally enforceable rights. In practice, the primary tool meant to ensure environmental justice is more of a strong suggestion than an enforceable rule, leaving communities with little legal recourse when agencies ignore its directives.

5. Even a Landmark "Win" Can Feel Like a Loss

The case of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs provides the most poignant illustration of NEPA's ultimate failure to protect vulnerable communities. The case centered on the Dakota Access Pipeline, which the Tribes argued posed a severe threat to their water supply and cultural resources.

In a rare and significant legal victory, the court found that the federal agency's environmental justice analysis was, in fact, "arbitrary and capricious" and deeply flawed. This was a landmark moment, as courts almost always defer to agency decisions. The Tribes had won their argument in court.

But the final outcome was stunning. Despite ruling that the agency had failed in its legal duty, the court did not halt the pipeline's operations. Instead, it simply ordered the agency to go back and remedy its procedural failures. This outcome was the direct result of the political pendulum in action; a new administration's executive order (No. 13766) immediately dismantled the previous one's cautious approach, with devastating real-world consequences. The Dakota Access Pipeline was allowed to continue operating while the government was ordered to reconduct its environmental analysis. This perfectly captures the limitations of a procedural law: even when a community wins, the "fix" may be nothing more than a bureaucratic do-over, while the project they fought continues to pose a threat.

Conclusion: Is Symbolic Justice Enough?

The promise of environmental justice in America remains largely unfulfilled, caught in a system that is vulnerable to political shifts and devoid of strong legal enforcement. The reliance on executive orders, which can be undone with the stroke of a pen, has proven to be an unstable foundation for protecting the nation's most vulnerable populations. The law requires a process, but not a just outcome.

The evidence from decades of court rulings and political whiplash is unequivocal: reliance on executive action is a failed strategy. Meaningful protection requires Congress to codify environmental justice, transforming it from a political preference into a legally binding and enforceable mandate.

This raises a final, critical question: When a system can identify injustice but lacks the power to stop it, what will it take for lawmakers to finally give our environmental laws the teeth they need to protect everyone equally?

To read more check out some of the research I've put together:

Hammond-R_Combined-EJ.pdf

Download PDF • 511KB

Sources:

References

1)    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.  §  4321-4347,  (1970).

2)    Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 32 (February 16^th 1994).

3)    Franzen, A. K. (2009). The time is now for environmental justice: congress must take action by codifying executive order 12898. Penn State Environmental Law Review, 17(3), 379-406.

4)    Salcido, R. E. (2016). Reviving the environmental justice agenda. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 91(1), 115-138.

5)    Outka, U., & Warner, E. K. (2019). Reversing course on environmental justice under the trump administration. Wake Forest Law Review, 54(2), 393-422.

6)    Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29815, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8560, 98 Daily Journal DAR 11975, 29 ELR 20336 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit November 23, 1998, Filed ). https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a3V5S-1JF0-0038-X1NK-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=BZJTHM63429.

7)    Coliseum Square Ass'n v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23726, 36 ELR 20195 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit September 18, 2006, Filed ). https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a4KXP-92B0-0038-X0JG-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=BZJTHM63429.

8)    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 255 F. Supp. 3d 101, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91297, 2017 WL 2573994 (United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaJune 14, 2017, Filed). https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a5NST-TYF1-F04C-Y16K-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=BZJTHM63429.

9)    City of Dallas v. Hall, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78847, 2007 WL 3125311 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division October 24, 2007, Filed). https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a4R05-6FC0-TXFR-Y1R0-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=BZJTHM63429.