Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
Reference: 549 U.S. 497
Term: 2007
Important Dates
Argued: Argued: November 29, 2006 Decided: April 2, 2007
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed
Majority
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer • Anthony Kennedy • John Paul Stevens • David Souter
Dissenting
John Roberts • Antonin Scalia • Samuel Alito • Clarence Thomas

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is a case decided April 2, 2007, by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases were air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and could be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The case concerned a petition from Massachusetts and 11 other states requesting EPA regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ruling the EPA had to regulate carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from motor vehicles if they were found to be endangering public health and welfare.

In brief: The petitioners argued that CO₂ and other gases from motor vehicles contributed to global warming and climate change, which they claimed "may reasonably be anticipated to endangered public health or welfare" under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to regulate carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from motor vehicles if they were found to be endangering public health and welfare. If the agency decided against regulating the emissions, the EPA was required to conclude that CO₂ emissions did not endanger public health and welfare. The EPA later issued a report in 2009 arguing that carbon dioxide emissions contributed to human-caused climate change and needed regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Why it matters: In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal agency could not cite policy preferences as a reason for refusing to regulate certain issues under its purview.

Background

Administrative State
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
• Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia

The federal Clean Air Act required the federal government to regulate air pollution from mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, and stationary sources, such as power plants and industrial facilities. The text of the Clean Air Act, including its text when it was first passed in 1963 and amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990, did not refer to climate change or greenhouse gases. The act authorized the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set motor vehicle emission standards for "any air pollutant" (as quoted from the Clean Air Act). The EPA administrator had to issue a report explaining how an air pollutant from a motor vehicle caused or contributds to any air pollution "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."^[1]

In 1999, Massachusetts and 11 other states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) petitioned the EPA requesting the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO₂) as an air pollutant. Massachusetts was joined by the following environmental advocacy organizations: the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, among others. The petitioners argued that CO₂ and other gases from motor vehicles contributed to global warming and climate change, which they argued "may reasonably be anticipated to endangered public health or welfare" under the Clean Air Act.^[1]

In 2003, the EPA denied the petition. The agency argued that it did not have legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide and other similar gases as air pollutants. The EPA also argued that if it did have the authority it would not regulate carbon dioxide because it would interfere with the George W. Bush administration's preferred policy approach to human-caused climate change. These policies included voluntary international climate agreements rather than Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA said it would not make a connection between carbon dioxide and human-caused climate change before the agency had researched "the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it." Massachusetts appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2005, which upheld the EPA's position. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard the case in November 2006. The court issued its ruling in April 2007 and sided with the petitioners.^[1]

Oral argument

Federalism
•Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism

Oral argument was held November 29, 2006. The case was decided April 2, 2007.^[2]

Decision

By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and ruled in favor of Massachusetts and against the EPA, holding that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant and could not cite policy reasons to justify not issuing motor vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion.^[2]

Opinions

Opinion of the court

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion.

First, the court argued that Massachusetts and the environmental advocacy groups had standing to challenge the EPA in court. To have standing in a lawsuit, one side must demonstrate it has connection to the law or action it is challenging and show that it would be harmed by the law or action. Massachusetts argued that it would be injured or harmed by the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide. Writing for the majority, Stevens argued that Massachusetts could face harm or injury in the form of rising sea levels along its coasts if the EPA did not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. "Given [the] EPA's failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, contributes to Massachusetts' injuries," Stevens wrote.^[2]

Second, Stevens wrote that the EPA had legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA argued that the Clean Air Act did not intend to include carbon dioxide and similar gases as air pollutants. The court argued that the act's definition of air pollutant was capacious and encompassed several physical and chemical substances released into the air.^[2]

Third, the EPA argued that if it had legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and similar gases under the Clean Air Act, the decision would conflict with the George W. Bush administration's preferred policies to address human-caused climate change issues. The court rejected the EPA's argument that the agency had the discretion to delay regulatory action on carbon dioxide based on its policy priorities. "Under the [Clean Air Act]'s clear terms, [the] EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do," Stevens wrote. The court's majority argued that the EPA's specific reasons for delaying the issue were unjustified under the Clean Air Act.^[2]

Roberts' dissent

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia (who wrote a separate dissent). Roberts argued that he would not grant standing to Massachusetts and the other petitioners because the harm facing the petitioners through the EPA's decision against regulating carbon dioxide—such as the potentially rising sea levels and the loss of Massachusetts' coastal land—was not concrete enough to warrant the lawsuit. Roberts argued that "the connection is far too speculative to establish causation" between the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide and concrete harm to Massachusetts from human-caused global warming. In addition, Roberts wrote that the case went beyond the judiciary's purview, arguing that the case was being used as a policy debate and not to resolve a legal dispute. "The constitutional role of the courts ... is to decide concrete cases—not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates," Roberts wrote.^[3]

Scalia's dissent

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate dissent.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who joined Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, wrote a separate dissenting opinion. Like Roberts, Scalia wrote that he would deny legal standing to Massachusetts and the other petitioners. Regarding the issue of the EPA's discretion in not regulating carbon dioxide, Scalia argued that the Clean Air Act did not say anything specific about what reasons the EPA may or may not use not to regulate a physical or chemical substance. "The reasons the EPA gave are surely considerations executive agencies regularly take into account (and ought to take into account) when deciding whether to consider entering a new field. ... There is no basis in law for the Court's imposed limitation," Scalia wrote. In addition, Scalia argued that he would have allowed the EPA to defer any decision on carbon dioxide emissions. "No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency," Scalia wrote.^[4]

Aftermath

EPA action

The George W. Bush administration left office without a decision on whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revisited the issue in 2009 under the Barack Obama administration. The Clean Air Act required a report on how a specific air pollutant could contribute to or cause air pollution that could endanger public health or welfare. The finding, known as an endangerment finding, was meant to demonstrate how emissions of a specific physical or chemical substance connect, cause, or contribute to air pollution. In 2009, the EPA issued a finding arguing that six gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, contributed to human-caused global warming and climate change. The EPA issued a second finding arguing that these gas emissions from motor vehicles endangered public health and welfare. The two findings were legal prerequisites to regulate a physical or chemical substance under the Clean Air Act.^[5][6]

In 2010, the EPA issued carbon dioxide regulations for motor vehicles. Newer light-duty vehicles, including common cars in the United States, were required to meet carbon dioxide emissions standards for the 2012-2016 model years. In May 2010, the EPA required that heavy-duty vehicles, such as trucks and vans, meet similar standards. In 2012, the EPA required all light-duty vehicles for the 2017-2025 model years to meet federal carbon dioxide standards.^[7][8][9]

In 2010, the EPA required stationary sources of carbon dioxide and similar gases to obtain construction and operating permits for their emissions. The regulation applied to power plants, refineries, cement production facilities, and other large facilities.^[10]

Legal challenges

After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating carbon dioxide and similar gases in 2010-2011, states and industry groups challenged the EPA's regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. States joining the lawsuit included Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. The states disputed the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide and similar gases endangered public health and welfare. They argued that the conclusion was not supported by the EPA's administrative record.^[11]

In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA's regulations and its endangerment finding. The states argued that the EPA relied upon inadequate scientific evidence when it found that carbon dioxide and similar gases endanger public health. The EPA based its report on studies published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others. The court upheld the EPA's conclusion about carbon dioxide. "The body of scientific evidence marshaled by [the] EPA in support of the [connection between greenhouse gases and public health] is substantial. ... Relying again upon substantial scientific evidence, [the] EPA determined that anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both public health and public welfare," the court argued. The court argued that it would defer to federal agencies when it came to "evaluating scientific data within [the federal agencies'] expertise." The court also dismissed the states' remaining challenges, arguing that the states lacked standing. Specifically, the court argued that the states failed to demonstrate how they would be harmed or injured by the EPA's regulations and failed to demonstrate how rescinding the regulations would redress potential injuries.^[11][12]

See also

• 

  Environmental policy in the U.S.

• 

  Energy policy in the U.S.

• 

  Endangered species policy in the U.S.

• Clean Air Act
• Implementation of the Clean Air Act
• Climate change

External links

Further reading

• U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) - Full opinion"
• U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) - John Roberts' Dissent"
• U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) - Antonin Scalia's Dissent"
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, "Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) - Full opinion

Footnotes

v • e The Administrative State Main The Administrative State Project main page • Administrative State Project Index • Glossary of administrative state terms • Quotes about the administrative state • Administrative state • Rulemaking • Deference • Adjudication • Nondelegation doctrine Reporting Changes to the Federal Register • Completed OIRA review of federal administrative agency rules • Federal agency rules repealed under the Congressional Review Act • Historical additions to the Federal Register, 1936-2016 • Pages added monthly to the Federal Register, 1995-2017 Laws Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Cases Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States Terms Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large Bibliography "Administrative Law - The 20th Century Bequeaths an 'Illegitimate Exotic' in Full and Terrifying Flower" by Stephen P. Dresch (2000) "Confronting the Administrative Threat" by Philip Hamburger and Tony Mills (2017) "Constitutionalism after the New Deal" by Cass R. Sunstein (1987) Federalist No. 23 by Alexander Hamilton (1787) "From Administrative State to Constitutional Government" by Joseph Postell (2012) "Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule (2002) "Rulemaking as Legislating" by Kathryn Watts (2015) "The Checks & Balances of the Regulatory State" by Paul R. Verkuil (2016) "The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine" by Keith E. Whittington and Jason Iuliano (2017) "The Progressive Origins of the Administrative State: Wilson, Goodnow, and Landis" by Ronald J. Pestritto (2007) "The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State" by Gary Lawson (1994) "The Study of Administration" by Woodrow Wilson (1887) "The Threat to Liberty" by Steven F. Hayward (2017) "Why the Modern Administrative State Is Inconsistent with the Rule of Law" by Richard A. Epstein (2008) Agencies Administrative Conference of the United States • United States Civil Service Commission • U.S. Government Accountability Office • U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs • U.S. Office of Management and Budget

v • e Environmental Policy Background Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news Energy and environmental news January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 Environmental terms Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy Endangered species terms Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species Environmental policy by state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Endangered species policy Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act Endangered species policy by state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Environmental statistics Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report Endangered species statistics Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state