Editing Stephen Breyer (section)

===Environment===
In ''[[Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.]]'' (2000), Breyer was in the 7–2 majority that held that people who use the North Tyger River for recreational purposes but could not do so due to pollution had standing to sue industrial polluters.

On April 23, 2020, Breyer wrote the majority opinion in ''[[County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 23, 2020 |title=COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126011944/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-260_jifl.pdf |archive-date=January 26, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref> The Court ruled that the County of Maui must have a permit under the [[Clean Water Act]] in order to release [[groundwater pollution]] into the ocean. Although the ruling was less broad than the 9th Circuit's ruling, environmentalist groups saw the ruling as a win and an affirmation of the Clean Water Act.<ref>{{Cite news |date=April 23, 2020 |title=Supreme Court says Clean Water Act applies to some groundwater pollution |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/politics/supreme-court-clean-water-act-maui/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302061215/https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/politics/supreme-court-clean-water-act-maui/index.html |archive-date=March 2, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021 |publisher=CNN}}</ref>

On July 31, 2020, Breyer dissented when the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, refused to lift a stay on the 9th Circuit ruling that halted construction of the wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Sierra Club argued that the wall would harm the environment unduly, including threatening wildlife and changing the flow of water in the Sonoran Desert.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 21, 2019 |title=The Destruction Caused by the Border Wall Is Worse Than You Think |url=https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2020-1-january-february/protect/destruction-caused-border-wall-worse-you-think |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121175206/https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2020-1-january-february/protect/destruction-caused-border-wall-worse-you-think |archive-date=January 21, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021 |publisher=Sierra Club}}</ref> Breyer wrote, "The Court's decision to let construction continue nevertheless, I fear, may 'operat[e], in effect, as a final judgment.'" Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined his dissent.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 31, 2020 |title=DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a60_bqm1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309193041/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a60_bqm1.pdf |archive-date=March 9, 2021 |access-date=February 14, 2021}}</ref>

On March 4, 2021, Breyer dissented in ''[[United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.]]'', joined only by Sotomayor. The case concerned the Sierra Club's request under the [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) for "draft opinions" concerning rules governing underwater structures that are used to cool industrial equipment. The Sierra Club argued that it had the right to access the documents.<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 4, 2021 |title=Breaking Away from Norms and Traditions, Justice Breyer Does Not 'Respectfully' Dissent Against Justice Barrett's First Majority Opinion |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/breaking-away-from-norms-and-traditions-justice-breyer-does-not-e2-80-98respectfully-e2-80-99-dissent-against-justice-barrett-e2-80-99s-first-majority-opinion/ar-BB1efi0M |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414223704/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/breaking-away-from-norms-and-traditions-justice-breyer-does-not-e2-80-98respectfully-e2-80-99-dissent-against-justice-barrett-e2-80-99s-first-majority-opinion/ar-BB1efi0M |archive-date=April 14, 2021 |access-date=March 4, 2021 |publisher=MSN}}</ref> The majority opinion limits environmental groups' ability to obtain government documents under FOIA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 4, 2021 |title=Barrett Rejects Sierra Club in First Opinion for Supreme Court |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/barrett-rejects-sierra-club-in-first-opinion-for-supreme-court/ar-BB1efbUk |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305123308/http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/barrett-rejects-sierra-club-in-first-opinion-for-supreme-court/ar-BB1efbUk |archive-date=March 5, 2021 |access-date=March 4, 2021 |publisher=MSN}}</ref> Breyer wrote in his dissent, "Agency practice shows that the Draft Biological Opinion, not the Final Biological Opinion, is the document that informs the EPA of the Services' conclusions about jeopardy and alternatives and triggers within the EPA the process of deciding what to do about those conclusions. If a Final Biological Opinion is discoverable under FOIA, as all seem to agree it is, why would a Draft Biological Opinion, embodying the same Service conclusions (and leaving the EPA with the same four choices), not be?"<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 4, 2021 |title=UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ET AL. v. SIERRA CLUB, INC. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-547_08m1.pdf |access-date=March 4, 2021}}</ref>

In ''Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association'', Breyer ruled for oil refineries, joining the majority opinion, which held that oil refineries struggling financially did not need a continuous exemption every year since 2011 in order to be granted an exemption from federal renewable fuels policy.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 25, 2021 |title=Oil refineries win battle over renewable-fuel exemptions |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/oil-refineries-win-battle-over-renewable-fuel-exemptions/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629222957/https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/oil-refineries-win-battle-over-renewable-fuel-exemptions/ |archive-date=June 29, 2021 |access-date=June 25, 2021 |website=SCOTUSblog}}</ref>