US vs Massachusetts 05-1120

US vs Massachusetts - (Slip Opinion OCTOBER TERM 2006 Syllabus 1 NOTE Where it is feasible a syllabus(headnote will be released as is being done in

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v . ENVIRONMENTAL PRO - TECTION AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007 Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regu- lating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, un- der §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA “shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emis- sion of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contrib- ute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not un- equivocally established. The agency further characterized any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emissions as a piecemeal approach to cli- mate change that would conflict with the President’s comprehensive approach involving additional support for technological innovation, the creation of nonregulatory programs to encourage voluntary pri- vate-sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and further re- search on climate change, and might hamper the President’s ability
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA Syllabus to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions. Petitioners, now joined by intervenor Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C. Circuit. Al- though each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately, two of them agreed that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his dis- cretion in denying the rulemaking petition. One judge concluded that the Administrator’s exercise of “judgment” as to whether a pollutant
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/27/2009 for the course POLI 790350 taught by Professor Kelleman during the Spring '09 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 66

US vs Massachusetts - (Slip Opinion OCTOBER TERM 2006 Syllabus 1 NOTE Where it is feasible a syllabus(headnote will be released as is being done in

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online