High Court Refuses to Resurrect Lawsuit Seeking Ban on Alar : Justices Won’t Revive Suit Seeking Alar Ban

The Supreme Court today refused to revive a lawsuit by consumer activist Ralph Nader, environmentalists and others seeking a government ban on the pesticide Alar.

The court, without comment, let stand a ruling that threw out the suit.

Alar, sold by Uniroyal Chemical Co., is used primarily to enhance the color and uniform ripening of apples. Some studies have shown that it can cause cancer in animals and may be a serious health risk to humans, particularly children.

But the Environmental Protection Agency on Jan. 6, 1987, rejected a plea by environmentalists and others to ban Alar. The agency said it lacks sufficient evidence to order the pesticide off the market.

Instead, 10 days later, the EPA lowered by one-third the allowable amounts of the chemical that may remain as residues in apples. The new rule was designed as an interim measure to permit more time for the agency to study Alar’s effects.

Procedural Reasons Cited

Nader and the others whose petition was denied by the EPA filed a federal suit aimed at forcing the agency to ban Alar.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last October threw out the suit for procedural reasons. The appeals court said the EPA could be exposed to a barrage of lawsuits if it was forced to go to court every time it denied a petition like the one submitted for Alar.

“EPA could conceivably be forced to appear continually in appellate courts defending regulations long established that parties failed to contest at the time of their promulgation,” the 9th Circuit Court said. “If Congress had intended such a result, it is unlikely it would have prescribed a fixed deadline for appeals from regulations.”

The Bush Administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the environmentalists’ bid to revive their suit.

Other High Court Action

Citizens who file petitions with the environmental agency should not be allowed to bypass administrative procedures established by federal law, Justice Department lawyers said.

In other action, the court:

--Let stand a ruling that a federal judge may overrule federal environmental officials and permit use of an allegedly dangerous pesticide. The justices rejected an appeal by environmentalists and organized labor in a case, involving the pesticide dinoseb, of particular importance to farmers in Idaho, Oregon and Washington state.

--Left intact a $101-million refund the nation’s telephone companies were ordered to pay customers for excessive charges in 1978. The court, without comment, rejected arguments that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in ordering the refunds.

--Agreed to decide whether the government may tax as income the deposits that utility companies demand from customers to ensure payment of future bills.