{KEYWORD:Solar Energy News}

Find out about Big Developments in Solar Energy -Nikkei Business- OPEN
techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/

Massachusetts v. Environmental
Protection Agency

THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE PROJECT ▾ TRACKING ▾ TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ▾ LAWS AND STATUTES ▾

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ▾ AGENCIES ▾ COURT CASES ▾

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is

a 2007 United States Supreme Court ruling that found that
carbon✉dioxide
Subscribe
and greenhouse gases Donate to Ballotpedia
are air pollutants Share: ! "
under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Search the Encyclopedia of American Politics #

HIGHLIGHTS
The case: Massachusetts, 11 other states, and
Massachusetts v.
several environmental advocacy organizations
Environmental Protection
petitioned the EPA requesting the regulation of carbon
dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant. Agency
Docket number: 05-1120
The issue: Does the EPA have legal authority
Court: United States Supreme Court
under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide
Court membership
emissions? Does the EPA have discretion not to
Chief Justice
regulate carbon dioxide emissions for policy reasons
John Roberts
under the Clean Air Act? Associate Justices
The outcome: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Antonin Scalia
the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas
emissions from motor vehicles if they are found to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G.
endangering public health and welfare. Breyer
John Paul Stevens • Samuel Alito •
In brief: The petitioners argued that CO2 and other gases David Souter
from motor vehicles contribute to global warming and
climate change, which they claimed "may reasonably be anticipated to endangered public health
or welfare" under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from motor vehicles if they were found to be endangering public
health and welfare. If the agency decided against regulating the emissions, the EPA was
required to conclude that CO2 emissions did not endanger public health and welfare. The EPA
later issued a finding in 2009 arguing that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to human-caused
climate change and thus should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Why it matters: In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal agency does
not have the discretion to cite policy preferences as a reason for refusing to regulate certain
issues under its purview.

Background
The federal Clean Air Act requires the federal government to regulate
Hello! Got airto answer a The
a second
pollution from mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, and stationary
one-question survey aboutAdministrative
our 1
sources, such as power plants and industrial facilities. The text of the Clean
site?
Air Act, including its text when it was first passed in 1963 and amended in State Project
1970, 1977, and 1990, does not refer to climate change or greenhouse
gases. The act authorizes the administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to set motor vehicle emission standards for "any air
pollutant" (as quoted from the Clean Air Act). The EPA administrator must
issue a finding explaining how an air pollutant from a motor vehicle causes
or contributes to any air pollution "which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." In 1999, Massachusetts and 11 other Five Pillars of
states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, the
New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) petitioned the Administrative
EPA requesting the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant. State
Massachusetts was joined by the following environmental advocacy • Judicial
organizations: the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the Sierra deference
Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, among others. The • Nondelegation
petitioners argued that CO2 and other gases from motor vehicles contribute • Executive control
to global warming and climate change, which they argued "may reasonably • Procedural rights
be anticipated to endangered public health or welfare" under the Clean Air • Agency
Act. dynamics
In 2003, the EPA denied the petition. The agency argued that it did not
Click here for
have legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide and
more coverage of
other, similar gases as air pollutants. In addition, the EPA argued that if it
the administrative
did have the authority it would not regulate carbon dioxide because it would
state on
interfere with the George W. Bush administration's preferred policy
Ballotpedia
approach to human-caused climate change. These policies included
voluntary international climate agreements rather than Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA
argued that it would not make a connection between carbon dioxide and human-caused climate
change before the agency had researched "the causes, extent and significance of climate
change and the potential options for addressing it." Massachusetts appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2005, which upheld the EPA's
position. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard
the case in November 2006. The court issued its ruling in April 2007 and sided with the
petitioners.[1]

Decision

Questions before the court:

1. Can the EPA regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act?
2. Does the EPA have discretion not to issue motor vehicle emissions standards for policy
reasons under the Clean Air Act?
Conclusions:
1. Yes, the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant because the definition of air
pollutants under the act permits the regulation of any air pollutant.
2. No, the EPA cannot cite policy reasons to justify not issuing motor vehicle emissions
standards under the Clean Air Act.

By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of

Massachusetts and against the EPA. Justice John Paul Stevens
wrote the majority opinion.[2]

First, the court argued that Massachusetts and the

Justice John Paul Stevens
wrote the majority opinion.
refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, contributes to Massachusetts' injuries,"
Stevens wrote.[2]
environmental advocacy groups had standing to challenge the
EPA in court. To have standing in a lawsuit, one side must
demonstrate it has connection to the law or action it is
challenging and show that it would be harmed by the law or
action. Massachusetts argued that it would injured or harmed by
the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide. Writing for the
majority, Stevens argued that Massachusetts could face harm or
injury in the form of rising sea levels along its coasts if the EPA
did not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. "Given [the] EPA's
failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between
man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its

Second, the court wrote that the EPA had legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA argued that the Clean Air Act did not intend to include
carbon dioxide and similar gases as air pollutants. The court argued that the act's definition of
air pollutant is capacious and can encompass several physical and chemical substances
released into the air.[2]

Third, the EPA argued that if it had legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and similar gases
under the Clean Air Act, the decision would conflict with the George W. Bush administration's
preferred policies to address human-caused climate change issues. The court rejected the
EPA's argument that the agency has the discretion to delay regulatory action on carbon dioxide
based on its policy priorities. "Under the [Clean Air Act]'s clear terms, [the] EPA can avoid
promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate
change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its
discretion to determine whether they do," Stevens wrote. The court's majority argued that the
EPA's specific reasons for delaying the issue were unjustified under the Clean Air Act.[2]

Dissent

Roberts' dissent
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion. He was
joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia
(who wrote a separate dissent). Roberts argued that he would not
grant standing to Massachusetts and the other petitioners because
the harm facing the petitioners through the EPA's decision against
regulating carbon dioxide—such as the potentially rising sea levels
and the loss of Massachusetts' coastal land—was not concrete
enough to warrant the lawsuit. Roberts argued that "the connection is
far too speculative to establish causation" between the EPA's decision
not to regulate carbon dioxide and concrete harm to Massachusetts
from human-caused global warming. In addition, Roberts wrote that Chief Justice John
the case went beyond the judiciary's purview, arguing that the case Roberts wrote the
dissenting opinion.
was being used as a policy debate and not to resolve a legal dispute.
"The constitutional role of the courts ... is to decide concrete cases—
not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates," Roberts wrote.[3]

Scalia's dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia, who joined Chief Justice Roberts' dissent,
wrote a separate dissenting opinion. Like Roberts, Scalia wrote that
he would deny legal standing to Massachusetts and the other
petitioners. Regarding the issue of the EPA's discretion in not
regulating carbon dioxide, Scalia argued that the Clean Air Act does
not say anything specific about what reasons the EPA may or may not
use not to regulate a physical or chemical substance. "The reasons
the EPA gave are surely considerations executive agencies regularly
take into account (and ought to take into account) when deciding
whether to consider entering a new field. ... There is no basis in law
for the Court's imposed limitation," Scalia wrote. In addition, Scalia Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote a separate
argued that he would have allowed the EPA to defer any decision on
dissent.
carbon dioxide emissions. "No matter how important the underlying
policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own
desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency," Scalia wrote.[4]

Response
Environmental organizations involved with the Massachusetts case supported the ruling. The
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a nonprofit environmental advocacy group and a
petitioner in the case, supported the ruling. "Today the nation's highest court has set the [Bush]
White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Clean Air Act gives EPA the
power to start cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate,"
said David Doniger, the group's attorney during the case. Greenpeace, an environmental
advocacy organization and petitioner in the case, argued that the ruling would result in federal
regulatory actions on human-caused climate change. "At a time when we can wait no longer for
action on global warming, this is exactly the impetus needed to move the [Bush] administration
towards concrete action," said John Passacantando, Greenpeace's executive director. The
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group of automobile manufacturers that sided
with the EPA, argued in favor a federal policy regulating carbon dioxide emissions. "The Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers believes that there needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide
approach to addressing greenhouse gases," said Dave McCurdy, the group's president.[5][6]

EPA action
The George W. Bush administration left office without a
decision on whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger
public health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) revisited the issue in 2009 under the Barack
Obama administration. The Clean Air Act requires a finding
on how a specific air pollutant may contribute to or cause air
pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The
finding, known as an endangerment finding, is meant to
demonstrate how emissions of a specific physical or chemical
substance connect, cause, or contribute to air pollution. In
2009, the EPA issued a finding arguing that six gases, The EPA began regulating
including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, greenhouse gas emissions in
contributed to human-caused global warming and climate 2009-2010.
change. The EPA issued a second finding arguing that these
gas emissions from motor vehicles endangered public health
and welfare. The two findings were legal prerequisites to regulate a physical or chemical
substance under the Clean Air Act.[7][8]

In 2010, the EPA issued carbon dioxide regulations for motor vehicles. New light-duty vehicles,
which include common cars in the United States, were required to meet carbon dioxide
emissions standards for the 2012-2016 model years. In May 2010, the EPA required that heavy-
duty vehicles, such as trucks and vans, meet similar standards. In 2012, the EPA required all
light-duty vehicles for the 2017-2025 model years to meet federal carbon dioxide
standards.[9][10][11]

In 2010, the EPA required stationary sources of carbon dioxide and similar gases to obtain
construction and operating permits for their emissions. The regulation applied to power plants,
refineries, cement production facilities, and other large facilities.[12]

Legal challenges
After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating carbon dioxide and
similar gases in 2010-2011, states and industry groups challenged the EPA's regulations in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. States joining the lawsuit
included Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. The states
disputed the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide and similar gases endanger public health and
welfare. They argued that the conclusion was not supported by the EPA's administrative
record.[13]

In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA's regulations and its endangerment finding. The states
argued that the EPA relied upon inadequate scientific evidence when it found that carbon
dioxide and similar gases endanger public health. The EPA based its report on studies published
by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, among others. The court upheld the EPA's conclusion about carbon dioxide.
"The body of scientific evidence marshaled by [the] EPA in support of the [connection between
greenhouse gases and public health] is substantial. ... Relying again upon substantial scientific
evidence, [the] EPA determined that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both
public health and public welfare," the court argued. The court argued that it would defer to
federal agencies when it came to "evaluating scientific data within [the federal agencies']
expertise." The court also dismissed the states' remaining challenges, arguing that the states
lacked standing. Specifically, the court argued that the states failed to demonstrate how they
would harmed or injured by the EPA's regulations and failed to demonstrate how rescinding the
regulations would redress potential injuries.[13][14]

See also

Environmental policy in the U.S. Energy policy in the U.S.

Endangered species policy in the U.S.

Clean Air Act

Implementation of the Clean Air Act
Climate change

External links
Further reading
U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) - Full
opinion"
U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) - John
Roberts' Dissent"
U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) - Antonin
Scalia's Dissent"
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, "Coalition for Responsible Regulation v.
Environmental Protection Agency (2012) - Full opinion

{KEYWORD:Solar Energy News}

Find out about Big Developments in Solar Energy
-Nikkei Business-
techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/ OPEN

Footnotes
1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, 3. ↑ Cornell University School of Law,
"Massachusetts v. EPA - Roberts' 5
"Massachusetts et al. c.
Environmental Protection Agency et Dissent," accessed October 12,
al.," October term 2006 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Supreme Court, 4. ↑ Cornell University School of Law,
"Massachusetts v. EPA - Scalia's 6
"Massachusetts v. EPA," April 2,
2007 Dissent," accessed October 12,
3. Only the first few references onLaw,
this page are shown
2015above. Click to show more.
↑ Cornell University School of
v•e
The Administrative State Project [show]

v•e
Ballotpedia [show]

v•e
Environmental Policy [show]

Booking Period: Oct

Fly from as low 21-27, 2019 Travel
Period: Oct 21, 2019-May
as Php 490 31, 2020

Ballotpedia features 297,938 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of
editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an
error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued
expansion.

GET ENGAGED 2019 ELECTIONS 2020 ELECTIONS ELECTION RESOURCES

Front Page Overview Overview Sample Ballot Lookup

Sample Ballot Lookup
Who Represents Me?
Email Updates
Ballotpedia Events
Donate to Ballotpedia
Other Ways to Engage
Job Opportunities
Report an Error
U.S. Congress special
elections
State Executives
State Legislatures
State Judges
State Ballot Measures
Local Ballot Measures
Municipal Officials
School Boards
Recalls
U.S. President Election Calendar
U.S. Congress Election Results
State Executives Ballotpedia's Candidate
Connection
State Legislatures
Poll Opening and Closing
State Judges
Times
State Ballot Measures
State Voter ID Laws
Local Ballot Measures
Early Voting
Municipal Officials
Absentee Voting
School Boards
Online Voter Registration
Recalls
Ballot Access

GOVERNMENT POLITICS PUBLIC POLICY ABOUT US

U.S. President Trump Admin. Policies Overview About Ballotpedia

U.S. Congress Trump Admin. Cabinet Budget Index of Contents
U.S. Supreme Court Administrative State Campaign Finance Scope of Ballotpedia
Federal Courts Supreme Court Cases Civil Liberties History of Ballotpedia
State Executives State Trifectas Education Ballotpedia in the News
State Legislatures State Triplexes Election Media Inquiries
State Courts Influencers Endangered Species Advertise with Ballotpedia
State Ballot Measures Redistricting Energy Ballotpedia Staff
Local Ballot Measures Fact Checks Environment Neutrality Policy
Municipal Government Polling Indexes Finance Privacy Policy
School Boards Healthcare Editorial Independence
Local Courts Immigration General Disclaimer
Pension Ad Policy
Redistricting
Voting

Privacy policy · About Ballotpedia · Disclaimers · Login