Date: 2 April 2007
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation(s): Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Short summary
Massachusetts, as well as individual and organizational petitioners, sued the Environmental Protection Agency for its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the authority granted it by the Clean Air Act. A narrowly divided United States Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts had standing in the suit, and that the Agency neglected its statutory duty to regulate air pollutants, including carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming.
Summary by: Vaughn Rajah
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
This decision is binding on all United States federal and state courts. However, it has already been curtailed in subsequent cases. See West Virginia v. EPA.
Key facts
In 1999, private organisations filed a rulemaking petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating emissions of four greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide (CO2), under § 202(a)(1) of 42 U.S.C.S. § 7521(a)(1), the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA requires EPA to prescribe standards applicable to emission of “any air pollutant” from any class of new motor vehicles which, in the EPA Administrator’s judgment, caused or contributed to air pollution reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In 2003, EPA under the Bush Administration issued an order denying the petition, asserting that the CAA did not authorise EPA to address global climate change and that, in any event, executive policy addressing global warming warranted EPA’s refusal to regulate in such area.
Previous instances
Private organisations, joined by intervenor states and local governments, sought review of EPA’s order refusing rulemaking in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied review, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.
One reason the D.C. Circuit denied hearing was its internal split on standing. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to hear “cases and controversies” between parties with an adversarial interest in a judicial ruling. Standing doctrine had, prior to Massachusetts, been most notably developed in the context of environmental suits by Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Lujan established that environmental plaintiffs must show 1) a concrete, particular injury they have suffered or will imminently suffer that 2) is causally related to the (in)action of the actor they are suing and 3) that a court order could sufficiently redress their harm.
Summary of holding
The questions before the Court were: Do any of the petitioners have standing to challenge EPA’s order refusing to make a rule regulating GHGs? If so, must the EPA regulate emissions of GHGs?
Continued on the next page…