Citizen Enforcement or Green Activism?

The original intent of citizen suit provisions was to allow the people the right to petition the government to act in their interest. Unfortunately, the privilege has been abused.

David R. Legates | September 1, 2026

Back in the early 1970s, several significant pieces of legislation were passed relating directly to the environment and cleaning up our air and water. In 1970, the Clean Air Act targeted airborne pollution. The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 to reduce pollution levels in surface waters. The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act focused on water intended for human consumption.

All three came with a stipulation -- that these issues were so important that even everyday citizens had the right to sue for clean air and water. But now, the Trump Administration has moved to block citizen activism on the environment.

Is this a case of reducing your rights as provided by legislation more than fifty years ago? Or is it something else?

These lawsuits are called ‘Citizen Suit Provisions’ and were intended as a way for individuals or advocacy groups to enforce federal environmental law. The concern at the time was that government agencies might drag their feet on environmental stewardship, so groups and people outside the government could sue both companies and federal agencies that were violating the law.

‘Citizen Suit Provisions’ have been used extensively in the years since. An article in The Conversation by Prof. Susan Morath of Wake Forest University notes that citizen suits have been instrumental in forcing dam construction to be halted to protect endangered species, the cessation of wastewater injection into groundwater, and to force Clairton Coke Works in Clairton, Pennsylvania, to clean their emissions and monitor pollution. In the latter case, a total of $14.2 million dollars in civil penalties were levied against Clairton Coke Works as a result.

Citizen lawsuits have not been limited to environmental issues. In 2025, a Texas state law sought to protect the unborn by prohibiting the manufacture of abortion pills within Texas. But as a possible remedy, the bill also allowed private citizens to sue physicians and distributors mailing abortion pills into the state.

Isn’t it good that........

© American Thinker