450 assignment 4 case brief dissent

450 assignment 4 case brief dissent - Massachusetts, et al,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Massachusetts, et al, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. 549 U.S. 497, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 167 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2007) REASONING: Justice Scalia delivered the dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA. He felt the Court had “no jurisdiction to decide this case because the petitioners lack standing” (Course Packet pg 35). He stated several reasons for his dissent including what the Clean Air Act states about deferring a judgment, the vagueness of various definitions, and whether global climate change actually counts as air pollution. The first claim Justice Scalia writes refers to the Clean Air Act (CAA). A provision in this act states the EPA should provide regulations for the emissions of any new motor vehicles, “which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” (Course Packet pg 35). There is nothing in the Clean Air Act that calls for the EPA to make a judgment when a petition is deferred. Justice Scalia writes that the Court does not point out when the EPA is required to
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/17/2011 for the course LEGAL 450 taught by Professor Holmes,j during the Fall '08 term at UMass (Amherst).

Page1 / 3

450 assignment 4 case brief dissent - Massachusetts, et al,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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