Supreme Court Update

By Wendy Wang
Issue:

Does EPA hold the authority to regulate air pollutants emitted by cars and
manufacturing companies?

The state of Massachusetts argues that some level or percentage (about 6
percent) ought to be caped on air pollutants from new vehicles. MA was


asked to prove "standing" for such a petition. One can't go to court to
force a change for the public good. The courts can only help relieve a
specific harm. So Massachusetts has to prove that carbon dioxide from
vehicles will lead to harm specific to Massachusetts and that if the EPA
regulates greenhouse gases in vehicles, Massachusetts will be better off.
MA argued that the harm is not linear, rather it is gradual and will
reveal itself over time.

They cite the following: That Congress never wanted greenhouse gases
regulated by the EPA, so the agency would be overstepping its authority to
try to regulate them. That even if it did have the authority, it wouldn't
regulate them and shouldn't be compelled to giving the scientific
uncertainty that proves imminent harm to the general public or its affect
on global warming. Finally, that the states bringing this case have no
business doing so because they aren't being harmed in any specific way,
they may never be harmed, and they wouldn't be helped if they won their
case. They say that it is not a priority for them, citing limited
resources. EPA felt that MA ought to prove the imminence of impending
harm this will cause.

Argument

The justices were skeptical of the government's argument that they made
their determination that they do not have the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases that they are making their "considerations" based on
parts of standards. As Breyer said, to only take part of considerations
makes them bad lawyers. MA supported Breyer's argument that the
government was focused primarily on the uncertainties, and ignoring the
proven certainties of harm the greenhouse gases will cause.

The State was unable to give the justices a satisfactory answer to when
harm will take into affect. The State could not say that the 6 percent
reduction of greenhouses gases it was asking for will guarantee in 6
percent improvement in the environment.

The EPA was not able to response to the justices' satisfaction that even a
6 percent reduction would be helpful, stating that to put such a cap on
the United States would not guarantee that the rest of the world would
follow suit. Stevens dismissed that portion of the argument and pressed
for an answer that even a small reduction would be for the long term good
of the environment.