Military Toxics Project v. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an association of chemical manufacturers had standing to intervene as defendants in a case involving a challenge to an EPA regulation because intervenors “would suffer concrete injury if the court grants the relief the petitioners seek”
• explaining that RCRA’s statutory definition of “solid waste” governs imminent endangerment suits
• allowing manufacturers' association to intervene on the side of the EPA because some of its members indirectly benefitted from an EPA rule regarding munitions
• finding standing and a protectible legal interest where industry association’s “members . . . operate military firing ranges regulated under” the challenged rule
• “The Military Munitions Rule provides that a military munition that lands on a firing range is not a solid waste and hence cannot be a hazardous waste for purposes of Subtitle C.”
• trade association had standing to intervene to defend EPA rule because its members would be harmed if rule was set aside

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).