• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Non-US
  • Non-U.S. Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation
  • Home
  • U.S. Litigation
  • Non-U.S. Litigation
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Non-US
  • About
  • Contact

Humane Society of United States v. Pruitt

Filing Date: 2017
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Clean Air Act
      • Environmentalist Lawsuits
Principal Laws:
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Description: Action to compel EPA to respond to 2009 petition requesting that concentrated animal feeding operations be regulated as sources of air pollution.
  • Humane Society of United States v. Pruitt
    Docket number(s): 1:17-cv-01719
    Court/Admin Entity: D.D.C.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    08/23/2017 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit Filed to Compel EPA to Respond to Petition to Add Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations as Source of Air Pollution. The Humane Society of the United States and three other groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to respond to the petition they submitted in September 2009 requesting that EPA regulate concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as sources of air pollution. The complaint alleged that "CAFOs emit dangerous air pollutants that contribute to climate change, threaten public health and safety, and harm the environment." In particular, the complaint alleged that "CAFOs release the powerful greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide." An earlier lawsuit was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to serve a notice of intent to sue.

© 2019 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

These materials are intended to be a useful resource and may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. They are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.

This website uses cookies as well as similar tools and technologies to understand visitors' experiences. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's usage of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice.OkColumbia University Website Cookie Notice