Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The case originated in 1999 when environmental groups petitioned the EPA to establish rules regulating vehicle emissions, a request the agency denied in 2003. The EPA's refusal was based on claims of lacking authority, insufficient scientific certainty linking human activity to climate change, and concerns about conflicting with the President's climate policy.
Massachusetts, along with other states and organizations, challenged the EPA's decision, leading to a Supreme Court review. The Court ruled that Massachusetts had the standing to sue, given its claims of harm from rising sea levels linked to greenhouse gases. It further determined that the EPA did possess the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, emphasizing that the agency's discretion should be grounded in the Clean Air Act rather than political considerations. This ruling not only reinforced states' rights to challenge federal decisions but also set the stage for subsequent EPA regulations under the Obama administration, culminating in a significant finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning the regulation of greenhouse gases
Date: Decided on April 2, 2007
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency substantially enhanced the opportunity of states to challenge the decisions of federal agencies in court, but it did not quickly produce an EPA regulation governing greenhouse gas emissions.
In 1999 a group of environmental organizations petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act to make a rule regulating greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions. In 2001 the EPA requested public comment, and in 2003 the agency denied the petition, giving three reasons: First, the EPA lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to issue carbon dioxideemission standards; second, scientific evidence had not conclusively established causal links between human activity, an increase in greenhouse gases, and a rise in global air temperature; and third, EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would conflict with the president’s climate change policy and hamper his ability to negotiate with other nations to reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts, joined by state and local governments and environmental organizations, appealed the decision. After the U.S. Court of Appeals denied review in 2005, the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of the state’s standing to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Justice John P. Stevens, writing for the Court, stated that the Court relaxed its standing test for two reasons: First, the dispute involved the interpretation of a federal statute, the Clean Air Act, intended to protect Massachusetts; and second, the party seeking review was a sovereign state that owned the territory alleged to be harmed, an interest that was entitled to particular generosity. Applying its three-part standing test, the Court granted Massachusetts standing to challenge the EPA’s refusal to grant the state’s rule-making petition, because the state had demonstrated sufficient injury by alleging that it had lost a significant portion of its coastline, that the EPA’s refusal to regulate auto emissions (though such emissions are only one source of greenhouse gases) contributed to this injury, and that the EPA’s use of its Clean Air Act authority to regulate carbon dioxide from new motor vehicles would be likely to redress the injury by slowing global warming.
The Court then addressed the two issues that had been appealed. First, it held that the EPA had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles because the statute’s broad definition of “air pollutant” includes all airborne pollutants. Second, it held that the EPA’s exercise of its authority had to be grounded in the Clean Air Act, which granted the agency discretion to determine if an air pollutant causes or contributes to the endangerment of public health or welfare, not the discretion to make policy arguments that it would be unwise to regulate at the present time. Since the EPA provided no reasoned explanation for its denial of the rule-making petition, its action violated the Clean Air Act. The EPA was mandated to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision grounded in the statute.
The Supreme Court’s decision substantially enhanced the opportunity of states to challenge federal agency decisions in court, but it did not quickly produce an EPA regulation governing greenhouse gas emissions. In May, 2007, President George W. Bush directed the EPA to write new regulations, but by the end of 2008, none had been issued. In April, 2009, the EPA under President Barack Obama’s administration concluded its scientific review and announced a proposed finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare. Then, on December 7, 2009, the opening day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, the EPA finalized its endangerment finding. This decision began the agency’s process of writing a new rule regarding the emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, and factories that contribute to global warming.
Bibliography
Ferrey, Steven. “Air Quality Regulation.” In Environmental Law: Examples and Explanations. 5th ed. New York: Aspen, 2010.
Heinzerling, Lisa. “The Role of Science in Massachusetts v. EPA.” Emory Law Journal 58 (2008): 411-422.
Sugar, Michael. “Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 31 (2007): 531-544.