PRESIDENT WINS ONE ON NAFTA

COURT REVERSES ORDER TO STUDY ENVIRONMENT

The Clinton administration won a major decision yesterday from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which ruled that courts have no power to order the president to prepare a detailed study of the North American Free Trade Agreement's likely effects on the environment.

The decision, by a unanimous three-judge panel, reversed a June 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Richey, who ordered the administration to prepare an environmental study "forthwith."

Yesterday's reversal removes the possibility of a lengthy -- and potentially fatal -- delay in congressional consideration of the pact, known as NAFTA.

The three groups that brought the suit -- Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club -- said they would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

NAFTA, which would create a free-trade zone encompassing the United States, Canada and Mexico, is to take effect Jan. 1. Legislation implementing it must first be approved in Congress, where it faces strong opposition and the outcome is in doubt.

"I applaud the decision," Clinton told reporters at the White House yesterday, adding that he will "be spending a significant amount of time every day calling members of Congress in both parties trying to line up support."

Yesterday's opinion, written by Chief Appeals Court Judge Abner J. Mikva, said NAFTA was a presidential action not covered by environmental laws that require federal agencies to prepare such environmental impact statements. "The president is not an agency," he wrote.

"The political debate over NAFTA in Congress has yet to play out," wrote Mikva, a former Democratic House member from Illinois. "NAFTA's fate now rests in the hands of the political branches. The judiciary has no role to play."

Appeals Court Judges Patricia M. Wald and A. Raymond Randolph joined in the decision. Mikva and Wald were appointed to the court by President Jimmy Carter, Randolph by President George Bush.

An environmental impact statement is an exhaustive review of potential environmental consequences of a proposed federal project on human health and welfare, wildlife, plant life and other natural resources. For major projects, such statements can contain hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of pages.

The organizations that brought the suit and other environmental groups argue that increased trade between the United States and Mexico could lead to environmental problems along the two nations' highly polluted common border.

Yesterday, Clinton said that NAFTA and a separate, accompanying agreement on environmental standards would "lead to improvements in the environment and increased investment on the Mexican side of the border in environmental cleanup."

U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said the World Bank next week would commit $3 billion to cleaning up the environment along the Mexican border.

Solicitor General Drew S. Days III argued vigorously that the court should reverse Richey's decision, saying at an Aug. 24 appellate hearing that NAFTA was so complex and far-reaching that it would be almost impossible to comply, that the environmental consequences might be too unpredictable to assess.

Mikva said that the case should not be construed as part of a legal "death knell" for environmental impact statements of legislative proposals.

However, Randolph wrote a separate opinion casting doubt on whether environmental groups, as well as others, can still sue the government to force the preparation of an environmental study in such cases. Randolph said a 1992 Supreme Court decision may have severely limited the right of a citizen to mount a court challenge over legislative proposals.

NAFTA would eliminate virtually all tariffs and barriers to trade among the three countries over 10 to 15 years, creating the world's largest free-trade zone.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.