Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency )

2007 United States Supreme Court case

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts , along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey , brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change .

Under the Clean Air Act , Massachusetts argued that the Environmental Protection Agency was required by law to regulate "any air pollutant" which could "endanger public health or welfare." The EPA denied the petition, claiming that federal law does not authorize the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants. This led to the U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act .

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massachusetts_v._EPA&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

In 1997 the United States Senate unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it did not set mandatory reduction targets for heavily polluting "developing" countries such as India and China. In 1999, a group of private organizations filed a rulemaking petition asking the EPA to regulate "greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under §202 of the Clean Air Act."

There were hopes that the incoming Bush Administration would direct the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. However, a few months into his first term in office, Bush clarified his view that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA requested public comment on the rulemaking petition in 2001. The EPA denied the petition in 2003. The agency gave the following two reasons for its decision:

1. Congress has not granted EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases for climate change purposes
2. EPA has determined that setting GHG emission standards for motor vehicles is not appropriate at this time.

It quoted Jeff Holmstead as saying that "Congress must provide us with clear legal authority before we can take regulatory action to address a fundamental issue such as climate change", and could not "try to use the Clean Air Act to regulate for climate change purposes because the Act was not designed or intended for that purpose", but they were already taking a number of actions.

Appeals court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massachusetts_v._EPA&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Appeals court")
]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on September 13, 2005, to uphold the decision of the EPA.

The lower court was sharply divided on whether the petitioners had "standing ", a personalized injury creating a right to claim remedial action from the government through the courts (i.e., rather than to seek favorable action by pressing for supportive legislation). Each of the three judges wrote a separate opinion. Judge David S. Tatel , dissenting, said the loss of shore land caused by climate change "satisfied each element of Article III standing—injury, causation, and redressability".

Parties

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massachusetts_v._EPA&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Parties")
]

The petitioners were the states of California , Connecticut , Illinois , Maine , Massachusetts , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Oregon , Rhode Island , Vermont and Washington , the cities of New York , Baltimore , and Washington, D.C. , the territory of American Samoa , and the organizations Center for Biological Diversity , Center for Food Safety , Conservation Law Foundation , Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense , Friends of the Earth , Greenpeace , International Center for Technology Assessment , National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council , Sierra Club , Union of Concerned Scientists , and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group . James Milkey of the Massachusetts Attorney General 's Office represented the petitioners in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Respondents were the Environmental Protection Agency , the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers , National Automobile Dealers Association , Engine Manufacturers Association, Truck Manufacturers Association, CO2 Litigation Group, Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the states of Michigan , Alaska , Idaho , Kansas , Nebraska , North Dakota , Ohio , South Dakota , Texas , and Utah .

Supreme Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massachusetts_v._EPA&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Supreme Court")
]

On June 26, 2006, the Supreme Court granted a _writ of certiorari _ to answer:

1. Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?
2. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles on the basis of policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).

Standing was a threshold issue that had divided the D.C. C

…