skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Alyeska Pipeline turns off the tap: can public interest law survive

Journal Article · · Environ. Law Rev.; (United States)
OSTI ID:6712693

Prospects for successful public-interest litigation were very encouraging in the early part of this decade. The Supreme Court, for example, had lowered the standing barrier in actions brought by private parties to protect the public interest. Indeed, courts were beginning to encourage public-interest suits. To ensure the fulfillment of the legislative intent behind public-interest statutes, courts used their equity power to fashion appropriate remedies to overcome a serious obstacle to public interest suits--the burden of attorneys' fees. Relying on the private attorney general concept, courts with increasing frequency began to award attorneys' fees to successful public-interest litigants. This paper examines briefly the development of the private attorney general exception to the American rule against awarding attorneys' fees. It then critically examines the Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, which repudiated the private attorney general exception. It suggests that, although the statutory history of attorney's fee awards is confusing and previous decisions in the area often have served only to muddle the issues, the Alyeska decision was unjustified even by a cautious reading of the precedents. In addition, it is suggested that the practical problems stemming from the application of the private attorney general exception that concerned the Court were largely illusory. Finally, the implications of Alyeska for future attorney's fee awards in public-interest litigation are examined.

OSTI ID:
6712693
Journal Information:
Environ. Law Rev.; (United States), Vol. 8; Other Information: Reprinted from Northwestern Univ. Law Review; 71: 239(1976)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English