Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Primary Holding
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles if it determines that such emissions may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
In the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court decided that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new cars if it finds that these emissions could harm public health or the environment. This ruling is important because it gives the EPA the power to take action against pollution that contributes to climate change, which can affect air quality and health for everyone. For consumers, this means they have the right to cleaner air and a healthier environment, as the government is required to address harmful emissions from vehicles. This case is relevant when considering issues like air pollution, climate change, and the environmental impact of cars, especially when you're looking for cleaner transportation options or advocating for environmental protections.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Twelve states as well as various cities and organizations sought to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide under its authority to regulate pollutants. The lawsuit was based on Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, a provision that requires the EPA Administrator to set emission standards for air pollutants from motor vehicles that the Administrator judges to play a role in pollution that could be reasonably expected to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to that mandate, the EPA had decided that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide for climate change purposes. Even if it did have that authority, it felt that it was unnecessary to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. The case combined the substantive issue of whether the agency had decided correctly on these issues with the procedural question of whether the states, cities, and organizations even had standing to bring such a claim. The concrete injury that they alleged was the loss of coastline to rising sea levels in global warming.
Whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the statutory authority under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, and if so, whether its reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.
The judgment of the Court is reversed and remanded.
When it reconsidered the matter, the EPA reversed its decision and found that regulating greenhouse gases had a reasonable connection to protecting public health and welfare. It stated that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide had played a key role in global warming. Challenges by states that opposed more aggressive agency regulations did not survive review by the D.C. Circuit.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- November 29, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Stevens
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007)
Consumer WonThe Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations regarding "modification" conform to the definitions established in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that any judicial review of EPA regulations must comply with the restrictions set forth in the Clean Air Act.
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over "waters of the United States" is limited to relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, as well as wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to such waters, thereby rejecting the broader interpretation that included intermittent and ephemeral water bodies.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006)
Consumer LostTaxpayers do not have standing to challenge state tax benefits under the Commerce Clause when they claim that such benefits increase their tax burdens, as they cannot demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007)
Consumer LostThe transfer of permitting authority under the Clean Water Act to state authorities does not require compliance with the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act, as Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA does not operate as an additional criterion for such transfers.