Environmental Racism in Cancer Alley

The eighty-five mile stretch along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana, often referred to as “Cancer Alley,”  is home to 25% of the nation’s petrochemical production. The significantly increased cancer risks for residents in the region earned the area its namesake. Cancer Alley has become a prime example of what many would consider environmental racism, or communities of color experiencing disproportionate environmental dangers. Having a population of 40% Black residents, Cancer Alley is representative of many minority or marginalized communities across America experiencing environmental challenges. 

This area has become a hub of environmental justice (EJ) efforts, with many activist groups like RISE St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Earthjustice taking legal action against petrochemical companies. However, in 2024 the State of Louisiana attempted to thwart EJ efforts by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) because of the EPA’s investigation into Louisiana’s permitting practices. This lawsuit was an attempt to redefine what constitutes discrimination and could set precedent for other states to challenge the EPA’s investigations into various government agencies across the country, ultimately resulting in detrimental impacts on EJ efforts nationwide.  

EPA Activates Full Authority

Prior to the lawsuit, in 2021, EPA Principal Deputy General Counsel Melissa Hoffer announced that the EPA would exercise “affirmative authority,” meaning the agency would take a more proactive approach to ensure that recipients of EPA funding complied with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Under Title VI, federally funded activities, programs, and institutions are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.” The EPA stated that those found in violation of the law may lose approvals or federal funds. Under Title VI regulations, parties are permitted to petition the EPA and other government agencies to investigate whether funding recipients are engaging in discriminatory practices. 

Courts have adopted a three-part test to determine whether a funding recipient’s policy or practice violates the Title VI disparate impact regulations: First, the disparate impact test asks, “does the adverse effect of the policy or practice fall disproportionately on a race, color, or national origin group?” Then, the test seeks to determine “if so, does the record establish a substantial legitimate justification for the policy or practice?” Lastly, the less discriminatory alternative raises the question of if “there exists an alternative that would achieve the same legitimate objective but with less of a discriminatory effect.” Disparate impact investigations can reveal policies that seem neutral, but in fact inflict disproportionate harm on specific minority or marginalized groups.

EPA’s Findings in Cancer Alley Investigation

In 2022, nonprofit environmental law organizations filed a complaint on behalf of concerned residents in St. John the Baptist Parish, which sits in the heart of Cancer Alley. These complaints alleged the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) violated Title VI by issuing air permits to Denka Chemicals and Formosa Plastics plants, two heavy contributors to air pollution in the area. The EPA opened a civil rights investigation into these state agencies. 

The EPA’s initial investigation found that these Departments’ practices related to air pollution control may have “an adverse and disparate impact on Black residents” who live near the Denka plant, the Formosa facility, and in the Industrial Corridor of Louisiana, which fails the first prong of the three-part test to identify Title VI violations. These residents were routinely exposed to various chemicals that placed them at higher risk of developing cancer in their lifetime. The EPA found several “specific LDEQ policies or practices, actions or inactions” within the LDEQ’s methods of administering its air pollution control program that may have been “causing or contributing to adverse disparate impacts based on race.” The EPA’s investigation clearly highlighted the concerns about the discriminatory practices of state agencies. 

Louisiana Pushes Back: Louisiana v. EPA 

In response to the EPA’s investigation, Louisiana Governor and former Attorney General Jeff Landry sued the EPA, the DOJ, and former President Joe Biden, challenging the EPA’s disparate impact standard. The suit claims the EPA was “putatively enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Landry then cites the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, stating Title VI “prohibits only intentional discrimination.” Landry complains that the EPA’s reliance on disparate impact theory “[expanded] its authority far past enforcement of actual environmental standards.” 

In June 2023, Louisiana moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the EPA and DOJ from enforcing disparate impact regulations. Shortly after, the EPA closed its investigations and claimed it resolved the Cancer Alley complaints. In January 2024, Judge James D. Cain Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled in favor of Louisiana and granted the preliminary injunction, stating the State had standing to challenge the EPA’s disparate impact mandates. In his decision, Judge Cain states, “if a decision maker has to consider race, to decide, it has indeed participated in racism. Pollution does not discriminate.” Judge Cain further challenges disparate impact claims stating, “Surely, that is why Title VI so plainly does not mention disparate impact.” This dangerous interpretation of Title VI suggests that minority populations have little to no legal standing for challenging practices that disproportionately affect them. Proving explicitly racist intent can be extremely difficult in EJ cases because practices that cause disproportionate harm often seem neutral at face value. Removing the ability for federal agencies to investigate the disparate impacts of these decisions can ultimately leave minority populations at the liberty of polluting chemical companies. 

Both Landry and Judge Cain cite Alexander v. Sandoval to support their claim that Title VI only prohibits intentional discrimination. However, this decision held that while individuals cannot file civil actions based on disparate impact regulations, federal agencies still maintained the authority to enforce such regulations. The Justice Department’s Title VI Legal Manual, updated in 2021, emphasizes the importance of federal agencies’ enforcement of disparate impact regulations stating, “federal funding agencies play a vital role in enforcing the prohibition on disparate impact discrimination through complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and guidance on how to comply with Title VI.” The Manual clarifies that “regulations remained valid” and federal funding agencies “retained their authority and responsibility to enforce them,” despite individuals being unable to enforce disparate impact regulations. Landry and Judge Cain’s mischaracterization of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sandoval threatens to undermine the power of federal agencies beyond the EPA. 

Dangerous Precedent and Future Implications 

The result of this suit was a major setback for the EPA, causing it to collapse environmental justice efforts across the country.  In addition to dropping its investigations in Cancer Alley, the EPA backed down from environmental justice challenges in Flint, Houston, Detroit, and St. Louis, fearing similar outcomes to Landry’s suit. The EPA fears that a challenge similar to Landry’s may make it to the Supreme Court, further undermining its authority and weakening its power. 

Minority populations across the country are left vulnerable because of the result of Landry’s lawsuit. The EPA, fearful of similar suits, was forced to drop cases before suits could even materialize. This has left at-risk populations with little to no protection. Without being able to enforce disparate impact regulations, the EPA may have to find a new method to address environmental racism. 

Moreover, the effects of misinterpreting Sandoval in Louisiana v. EPA may spill over into other federal agencies, upending “bedrock civil rights protections and leave minority communities without redress for discrimination.” The results of this case not only harm Cancer Alley residents, but also threaten environmental justice and civil rights efforts at large.