Supreme Court Declines Review, Allowing Environmental Justice Suit Against St. James Parish to Proceed

The denial of certiorari leaves in place a unanimous Fifth Circuit opinion holding that the plaintiffs, a church and two civil rights groups, have standing to pursue claims seeking a moratorium on new and expanded petrochemical development in majority-Black districts of the parish.

We previously covered this matter alongside broader developments in federal civil rights enforcement and the trial court’s dismissal on standing grounds. With certiorari denied, Inclusive Louisiana returns to the district court for merits proceedings, and any final judgment may generate further appellate review.

The immediate takeaway of this decision is that both municipalities and project developers may face heightened litigation and permitting risk. Developers may face increased exposure to litigation targeting governmental approvals allowing siting in overburdened communities, with attendant delays. In turn, municipalities face parallel risks of litigation about over approval patterns, moratoria decisions, and recordkeeping.

The Fifth Circuit’s Decision

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded seven claims, holding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged concrete injuries — health, property-value, stigmatic, and religious or cultural — fairly traceable to parish land-use decisions and redressable by court-ordered relief. The court also found the claims not time-barred, reasoning that more recent siting approvals fell within the limitations period.

The court also held that claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Louisiana Constitution may proceed. The RLUIPA bars governments from enforcing land-use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise unless the government satisfies strict scrutiny. Here, the plaintiffs plausibly allege that parish land-use decisions enabling industrial encroachment burden religious practices tied to Black churches and access to ancestral cemeteries. At the pleading stage, Article III causation requires only a “relatively modest” showing that the Parish significantly contributed to those injuries.

Why the Denial Matters

Although the denial of certiorari is not an endorsement of the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning, it leaves that decision intact as legal authority. As a practical matter, local land-use bodies can be proper defendants, where permitting or siting decisions allegedly channel harmful industrial development into specific communities and away from others, and traceability at the pleading stage can be satisfied where governmental authorizations significantly contribute to alleged injuries — even when private entities operate the facilities. In addition, the RLUIPA claims premised on burdens to religious exercise arising from government-enabled industrial encroachment near religious institutions or ancestral cemeteries can proceed beyond the pleadings.

St. James Parish sought review to narrow Article III standing for suits against local governments that “merely issue approvals” enabling third-party industrial activity. The petition argued the Fifth Circuit decision “flouts” standing precedent dating back to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, because harms flow from private actors’ emissions and operations, not from parish decisions. The parish also warned that the Fifth Circuit’s decision would shift responsibility for damages caused by third parties to local governments.

Practically, the denial indicates the following.

• Local land-use bodies can be sued for permitting or siting decisions that allegedly channel harmful industrial development into specific communities.

• For standing purposes, “traceability” is satisfied at the pleading stage when the plaintiffs plausibly allege that governmental authorizations significantly contributed to their injuries, even where private entities operate the facilities at issue.

• At least as pleaded here, the RLUIPA claims premised on burdens to religious exercise arising from government-enabled industrial encroachment near religious institutions or ancestral cemeteries can proceed beyond the pleadings.

Allegations on Remand

The plaintiffs allege a decades-long pattern of steering heavy industry to the Parish’s majority-Black Fourth and Fifth Districts while limiting such development in majority-White areas. They point to the parish’s -use plan concentrating industrial designations in majority-Black districts, buffer protections extended to certain facilities in majority-White areas without comparable protections for Black churches and schools, disparate moratorium treatment in 2022, and approvals that allegedly proceeded despite inconsistencies with stated designations or omissions in applications, including projects near Black churches or schools and on or near former plantation properties with likely cemeteries.

The district court will now address the merits of constitutional claims under the 13th and 14th Amendments, statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the RLUIPA, and a claim under the Louisiana Constitution’s protection of historic, linguistic, and cultural origins.

Practical Implications

For developers, the decision underscores the importance of local governments building robust administrative records, credible alternatives analyses, and community engagement that addresses cumulative impacts and proximity to religious institutions and cultural sites in case their decisions are ever called into question. (We outline ways to minimize litigation and permitting risks here.)

For local governments, contemporaneous records tying land-use decisions to neutral criteria,  and consistently applied across neighborhoods, will be critical. Jurisdictions should anticipate discovery into historic and recent siting decisions, moratorium practices, buffer-zone policies, and equity analyses, and consider formalizing cumulative impacts assessments and equitable treatment of moratorium requests.

Stay tuned for further developments. Members of the firm’s Environmental and Environmental, Social & Governance teams regularly monitor regulatory and court decisions affecting businesses and communities.