US Nixes Environmental Racism Probe, Sparking Advocates’ Concern

The EPA’s decision to scrap a pivotal civil rights investigation on Louisiana’s Cancer Alley drew concern from advocates and residents about the future of the agency’s commitments to justice for communities plagued by legacy pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department announced on June 27 that they are ending a probe into the Louisiana government’s oversight of a heavily industrialized corridor of southeastern Louisiana near Baton Rouge.

The decision appears to conflict with the EPA’s previous statements and commitments to abating pollution in the region, leaving advocates questioning the message the action sends regarding other justice commitments touted by the agency.

“It’s setting a dangerous precedent when the Biden administration has set up all these different things like the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council and Justice40,” according to Climate Justice Alliance co-Executive Director Marion Gee. “Why is it not also enforcing regulation and fulfilling its mandate to protect people?”

The brief announcing the closure was filed in a case, Louisiana v. EPA, brought by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R), which claimed the EPA “lost sight of the agency’s actual environmental mission, and instead decided to moonlight as social justice warriors fixated on race” when it launched the Cancer Alley probe.

In a subsequent filing, the EPA and DOJ said they didn’t find any discrimination, and that the administration has resolved complaints from local advocacy groups including Inclusive Louisiana, RISE St. James, and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade.

In a statement on the closure, the EPA said it “remains fully committed to improving environmental conditions in St. John the Baptist and St. James Parishes.”

“Community participation has been critical to identifying both problems and solutions, and we look forward to our continued partnership with the residents in both parishes as we continue our joint efforts to improve public health and the environment,” according to the statement.

All of this comes after an October 2022 letter from the EPA to Louisiana officials that cited “significant evidence” of “adverse and disparate impact on Black residents.”

“The calculus is not adding up,” Gee said.

Conceding Ground

Predominately Black residents of the area known as Cancer Alley are exposed to myriad toxic chemicals, including carcinogens such as ethylene oxide and chloroprene. That’s based on data from 170 petrochemical facilities that report their emissions, according to the Deep South Center For Environmental Justice (DSCEJ).

The corridor is seen by many public health and environmental advocates as ideal ground to exercise the authority of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, which examines complaints of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The EPA initiated its investigations into the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the Louisiana Department of Health in April 2022, specifically looking into the efficacy of their air pollution and public health programs in Cancer Alley.

When agency officials announced the administrative closure of the complaints, they issued two letters detailing the “significant action” taken to mitigate pollution already. These included multiple orders to stem pollution from a high-emitting Denka Performance Elastomer facility.

The explanations left some southeast clean air watchers unsatisfied.

“We are disappointed by the US Department of Justice’s recent court filing that claims the complaints are ‘resolved’ without any remedy for the environmental racism suffered in Black communities,” DSCEJ Executive Director Beverly Wright said in a statement.

Evidence of intentional discrimination needs to be found in order for these cases to prevail, which is a standard that’s hard to prove and is currently being examined within a backlog of complaints. Civil rights enforcement has been touted as a priority under this administration, which asked for $1.4 million in funding for an environmental justice office at the DOJ.

These commitments have likely been the source of the influx of civil rights cases filed under the administration, many of which are still awaiting resolution, according to Amy Laura Cahn, legal director at Taproot Earth.

Closing an investigation like this one, especially in the face of a lawsuit like Louisiana v. EPA, “ends up conceding huge ground,” Cahn said.

“And the impact for the state of Louisiana—where Black Louisianans have been fighting to protect their health and lives and livelihoods for decades—the result is really treating these communities as a legal sacrifice zone,” said Cahn, referencing a term coined by environmental justice scholar Robert Bullard to describe fenceline communities that live in the immediate vicinity of an industrial facility.

Troubling Disconnect

Some court watchers are also looking at how recent high-profile legal decisions scaling back agency authority and decades of precedent may overshadow EPA and DOJ actions.

West Virginia v. EPA drew hard lines around executive authority, and the Supreme Court last week overturned years of precedent and ruled to bar race from university admissions. Justice Clarence Thomas cited a “colorblind Constitution and our nation’s equality ideal"—an idea that resembles Louisiana’s arguments in its case against the Cancer Alley investigation.

But that doesn’t mean closing the Cancer Alley investigation was part of a broader scheme to avoid bigger court losses, according to King & Spalding LLP partner Doug Henderson, who believes the EPA simply closed the investigation after a detailed look at the facts of the case.

“Does this signal that EPA is backing down? I don’t see it that way,” Henderson said. “Environmental justice is still a top priority, and EPA will still be conducting these investigations.”

For attorneys and advocates including Cahn, the disconnect between last month’s decision and agency commitments to justice is still “deeply troubling.”

“I can only believe that EPA would not have made that decision except that there is a lot at stake, but it can’t be as simple as that,” Cahn said.