Case Citator › Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
523 U.S. 83
Decided
Confirmed treatments
9
Flagged citations read
326 of 326
Citing cases (total)
10,092
Treatment dates
1999–2015
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment is limited; the 9 confirmed treatments are listed below. The courts confined its jurisdiction-first rule in contexts involving threshold non-merits grounds, waivable sovereign immunity, non-Article III restrictions, and Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.
More on how this was screened

One court also questioned how Steel Co. reconciles with Bennett v. Spear. All 326 flagged citations have now been read; the other opinions applied Steel Co., reported its treatment of older circuit law, or used nearby adverse language for unrelated authorities. Recent lower-court parentheticals claiming that Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. or Riley v. Bondi abrogated Steel Co. did not produce entries because the actual Supreme Court opinions cite Steel Co. approvingly.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

10,092 later cases cite Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment; 326 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Court held that Steel Co. does not require subject-matter jurisdiction to be decided before personal jurisdiction and allowed the easier personal-jurisdiction issue to come first.

    Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The Fifth Circuit incorrectly read Steel Co. to teach that subject-matter jurisdiction must be found to exist, not only before a federal court reaches the merits, but also before personal jurisdiction is addressed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court allowed merits adjudication before a conditionally asserted Eleventh Amendment defense, declining to extend Steel Co.'s sequencing rule to that waivable immunity.

    McClendon v. Georgia Department of Community Health · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    In Seaborn, we did say that “an assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be resolved before a court may address the merits of the underlying claim(s).” Id. at 1407 (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-101, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1012-16 (1998)). ... Our holding is limited to the conclusion that the conditional assertion of the Eleventh Amendment gives a federal court the discretion to dispose of the merits favorably to the state or its officials if it chooses to do so.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court bypassed sovereign immunity where the defendants raised it only in the alternative, reserving whether Steel Co. requires immunity first when the state insists on it as a threshold defense.

    Nair v. Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority · Sixth Circuit · filed

    After all, Steel Co.’s rule is premised on a court’s lack of power to reach the merits without establishing its jurisdiction. ... Because the defendants have raised sovereign immunity as an alternative defense, because the district court addressed only the merits and because the merits offer a more straightforward way for resolving this case, we bypass the sovereign-immunity question and proceed to Nair’s claims under the First Amendment and Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court confined Steel Co.'s ban on hypothetical jurisdiction to Article III issues and held that prudential-standing objections need not be resolved first.

    Nisselson v. Lernout · First Circuit · filed

    That frees our hands: Steel Co.'s ban on hypothetical jurisdiction extends only to issues involving Article III jurisdiction and, hence, Article III standing.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Court held that Steel Co.'s jurisdiction-before-merits rule does not prevent forum-non-conveniens dismissal before subject-matter or personal jurisdiction is established.

    Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Both Steel Co. and Ruhrgas recognized that a federal court has leeway “to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court confined Steel Co.'s substantial-federal-question requirement to arising-under jurisdiction and declined to extend it to Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.

    Jan's Helicopter Service, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration · Federal Circuit · filed

    But Steel Co. and other Supreme Court cases recognizing such a requirement involved situations where jurisdiction was founded on the “arising under” language of Article III, U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2, el. 1, which, in turn, is reflected in the “arising under” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court confined Steel Co.'s rationale to Article III defects and continued to bypass statutory or prudential jurisdictional issues in favor of the merits.

    First State Insurance Co. v. National Casualty Co. · First Circuit · filed

    Although the Supreme Court has disapproved of some uses of hypothetical jurisdiction, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998), we have held that the Court's rationale extends only to situations that implicate Article III jurisdiction. See, e.g., Nisselson v. Lernout, 469 F.3d 143, 151 (1st Cir. 2006); McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107, 127 (1st Cir. 2005). We may continue to bypass thorny jurisdictional issues and resolve cases on the merits where, as here, those jurisdictional issues implicate only statutory or prudential considerations.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • In a nonprecedential summary order, the court confined Steel Co.'s bar to potential constitutional defects and assumed unresolved statutory appellate jurisdiction.

    In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 2, 2015 · Second Circuit · filed

    We need not decide whether Perlman would apply in the circumstances of this case, however, because the only restriction on jurisdiction here is a statutory and not a constitutional one, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and “the Supreme Court has barred the assumption of ‘hypothetical jurisdiction’ only where the potential lack of jurisdiction is a constitutional question.” Fama v. Comm’r of Corr. Servs,, 235 F.3d 804, 816 n. 11 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). As both sides urge us to reach the merits and it would be more efficient for us to do so, we'assume we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The court said Steel Co.'s relationship with Bennett v. Spear remained in doubt and left uncertainty about deciding statutory standing before Article III standing.

    Alliance for Environmental Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co. · Second Circuit · filed

    How Steel Co. is to be reconciled with Bennett remains in doubt. ... Steel Co. is clear enough that merits issues may not be decided first, but leaves us uncertain as to the circumstances under which statutory standing may be decided (and rejected) before Article III standing is established.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace