978-1285770178 Case Problem Case CPC-23-05

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Massachusetts v. E.P.A.

MASSACHUSETTS et al., Petitioners,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.

No. 05-1120.

Argued Nov. 29, 2006.

Decided April 2, 2007.

Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant

increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected

scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released

energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species-the

FN1 a group of States,FN2 local governments,FN3 and private

organizations,FN4 alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act

to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.

Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions concerning the

meaning of § 202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to

regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether

its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.

FN1. Pet. for Cert. 22.

FN2. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New

Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

FN3. District of Columbia, American Samoa, New York City, and Baltimore.

FN4. 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 U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

In response, EPA, supported by 10 intervening States FN5 and six trade

associations,FN6 correctly argued that we may not address those two questions

unless at least one petitioner has standing to invoke our jurisdiction under Article

III of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional

argument and the absence of any conflicting decisions construing § 202(a)(1),

the unusual importance of the underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ.

548 U.S. —-, 126 S.Ct. 2960, 165 L.Ed.2d 949 (2006).

FN5. Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South

Dakota, Texas, and Utah.

127 S.Ct. 1438

U.S.,2007

Supreme Court of the United States

FN6. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers

Association, Engine Manufacturers Association, Truck Manufacturers

Association, CO2 Litigation Group, and Utility Air Regulatory Group.

Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as added by Pub.L. 89-272, § 101(8), 79

pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or

welfare ….” FN7

FN7. The 1970 version of § 202(a)(1) used the phrase “which endangers the

public health or welfare” rather than the more-protective “which may reasonably

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” See § 6(a) of the Clean Air

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, p. 1077.

The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent or combination of

such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive …

substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” §

7602(g). “Welfare” is also defined broadly: among other things, it includes

420,000-year-old ice-core record.FN9 By the time Congress drafted § 202(a)(1)

in 1970, carbon dioxide levels had reached 325 parts per million.FN10

FN8. The Council on Environmental Quality had issued a report in 1970

concluding that “[m]an may be changing his weather.” Environmental Quality:

The First Annual Report 93. Considerable uncertainty remained in those early

sheets and extracting “cores,” scientists can examine ice from long ago and

extract small samples of ancient air. That air can then be analyzed, yielding

estimates of carbon dioxide levels. Ibid.

FN10. A more dramatic rise was yet to come: In 2006, carbon dioxide levels

reached 382 parts per million, see Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic &

In the late 1970’s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to

the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could

provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate

Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program

to “assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and

it is too late.” FN11

FN11. Climate Research Board, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific

Assessment, p. vii (1979).

Congress next addressed the issue in 1987, when it enacted the Global Climate

Protection Act, Title XI of Pub.L. 100-204, 101 Stat. 1407, note following 15

diplomacy” and coordinate diplomatic efforts to combat global warming, §

1103(c). Congress emphasized that “ongoing pollution and deforestation may be

contributing now to an irreversible process” and that “[n]ecessary actions must be

identified and implemented in time to protect the climate.” § 1102(4).

Meanwhile, the scientific understanding of climate change progressed. In 1990,

warming of the Earth’s surface.” FN12

FN12. IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, p. xi (J.

Houghton, G. Jenkins, & J. Ephraums eds.1991).

Responding to the IPCC report, the United Nations convened the “Earth Summit”

in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The first President Bush attended and signed the

FN13. The industrialized countries listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC undertook to

reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. No

immediate restrictions were imposed on developing countries, including China

and India. They could choose to become Annex I countries when sufficiently

developed.

Senate unanimously passed a resolution expressing its sense that the United

States should not enter into the Kyoto Protocol. See S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st

Sess. (July 25, 1997) (as passed). President Clinton did not submit the protocol

to the Senate for ratification.

FN14. IPCC, Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change, p. 4.

greenhouse gas emissions have significantly accelerated climate change; and

that the IPCC’s 1995 report warned that “carbon dioxide remains the most

important contributor to [man-made] forcing of climate change.” Id., at 13 (internal

quotation marks omitted). The petition further alleged that climate change will

have serious adverse effects on human health and the environment. Id., at 22–

Administrator (Apr. 10, 1998) (hereinafter Cannon memorandum)). Cannon’s

successor, Gary S. Guzy, reiterated that opinion before a congressional

committee just two weeks before the rulemaking petition was filed. See id., at 61.

FN15. Alliance for Sustainable Communities; Applied Power Technologies, Inc.;

Bio Fuels America; The California Solar Energy Industries Assn.; Clements

Industries Assn.; The SUN DAY Campaign. See App. 7-11.

Fifteen months after the petition’s submission, EPA requested public comment on

“all the issues raised in [the] petition,” adding a “particular” request for comments

on “any scientific, technical, legal, economic or other aspect of these issues that

may be relevant to EPA’s consideration of this petition.” 66 Fed.Reg. 7486, 7487

report titled Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (NRC Report),

which, drawing heavily on the 1995 IPCC report, concluded that “[g]reenhouse

gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,

causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are, in fact, rising.” NRC Report 1.

at 52929-52931.

In concluding that it lacked statutory authority over greenhouse gases, EPA

observed that Congress “was well aware of the global climate change issue

when it last comprehensively amended the [Clean Air Act] in 1990,” yet it

declined to adopt a proposed amendment establishing binding emissions

see Title VI, 104 Stat. 2649, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7671-7671q-counseled against reading

the general authorization of § 202(a)(1) to confer regulatory authority over

greenhouse gases.

EPA stated that it was “urged on in this view” by this Court’s decision in FDA v.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d

substance that “is fairly consistent in its concentration throughout the world’s

atmosphere,” 68 Fed.Reg. 52927 (emphasis added); declined in 1990 to enact

proposed amendments to force EPA to set carbon dioxide emission standards for

motor vehicles, ibid. (citing H.R. 5966, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990)); and

addressed global climate change in other legislation, 68 Fed.Reg. 52927.

Having reached that conclusion, EPA believed it followed that greenhouse gases

cannot be “air pollutants” within the meaning of the Act. See ibid. (“It follows from

this conclusion, that [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants under the

[Clean Air Act’s] regulatory provisions …”). The agency bolstered this conclusion

by explaining that if carbon dioxide were an air pollutant, the only feasible

detail why it would refuse to exercise that authority. The agency began by

recognizing that the concentration of greenhouse gases has dramatically

increased as a result of human activities, and acknowledged the attendant

increase in global surface air temperatures. Id., at 52930. EPA nevertheless gave

controlling importance to the NRC Report’s statement that a causal link between

approach” to the problem, id., at 52932. That approach involves additional

support for technological innovation, the creation of nonregulatory programs to

encourage voluntary private-sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and

further research on climate change-not actual regulation. Id., at 52932-52933.

According to EPA, unilateral EPA regulation of motor-vehicle greenhouse gas

separate opinion, two judges agreed “that the EPA Administrator properly

exercised his discretion under § 202(a)(1) in denying the petition for rule making.”

415 F.3d 50, 58 (2005). The court therefore denied the petition for review.

FN16. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) (“A petition for review of action of the

Administrator in promulgating any … standard under section 7521 of this title …

authorized the EPA Administrator to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that “in

his judgment” may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or

welfare,” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), Judge Randolph concluded that the exercise of

that judgment need not be based solely on scientific evidence, but may also be

informed by the sort of policy judgments that motivate congressional action. 415

III.” Id., at 59 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in judgment). In his view,

they had alleged that global warming is “harmful to humanity at large,” but could

not allege “particularized injuries” to themselves. Id., at 60 (citing Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351

(1992)). While he dissented on standing, however, he accepted the contrary view

as the law of the case and joined Judge Randolph’s judgment on the merits as

the closest to that which he preferred. 415 F.3d, at 60-61.