Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

Background:

October 20, 1999, Massachusetts and eleven other states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requesting EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, along with other gasses contributing to global warming, particularly from new motor vehicles. The petitioning states relied on the Clean Air Act. The coalition of states included Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. It additionally contained three cities: New York City, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., the two U.S. territories of American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, along with several environmental groups. Massachusetts was particularly singled out and prominent in this case, put first on legal paperwork, as lawyers had to prove standing. Because Massachusetts was actively losing its physical, state-owned coastal land to rising sea levels caused by global warming, it had the easiest, and most clear legal argument to prove it was being harmed 

The Case:

In 2003, EPA denied this petition, claiming: the Clean Air Act does not authorize the Agency to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gasses. In addition, the EPA argued, they possess the discretion to defer a decision until more research could be done on what the causes, extent, and significance of climate change were. The original petitioners appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In the Court of Appeals, a fractured, three judge panel ruled in favor of the EPA 2-1. The majority of the D.C. Circuit judges decided that the EPA Administrator had properly administered his discretion by using political and policy judgments to decline making a rule. The states asked the full D.C. Circuit court to rehear the case (an en banc review), however, the court rejected their request. The coalition then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court's ruling.

Debates From Each Side:

Massachusetts, along with the rest of the states, argued that the EPA was required to regulate these greenhouse gases by the Clean Air Act, which states that Congress must regulate any air pollutant that can reasonably be predicted to endanger public health or welfare. They claimed the EPA could not use political or policy excuses to avoid its duty if the scientific data showed these gases were harmful. Instead of making it a broad debate about the science of climate change, they focused heavily on standing, meaning the right to sue. The coalition proved that Massachusetts was experiencing a real, physical issue because rising sea levels caused by climate change were eroding and submerging its state-owned coastal land. They argued that while regulating U.S. car emissions wouldn’t fix global warming, it would slow it down. In this case, every small amount of reduction helps prevent further land loss. 

The EPA contended that climate change affects everyone on Earth. Because the harm is widespread rather than specific to Massachusetts, they argued the states did not have a unique right to sue. Additionally, it was asserted that regulating car emissions would have a trivial impact on the issue. The EPA argued that when Congress originally wrote the Clean Air Act, they intended "air pollutants" to mean local air quality hazards, such as smog or soot, that humans breathe on the ground, not gases in the upper atmosphere that impact the climate. The EPA claimed the possession of political discretion to choose not to regulate vehicle emissions, especially because doing so could interfere with the President George W. Bush’s foreign policy negotiations regarding global climate pacts. 

Verdict:

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote in favor of Massachusetts and their co-petitioners on April 2, 2007. It was determined that greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, fit the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of an “air pollutant”, meaning the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the Court found that the EPA could not decline to regulate carbon dioxide based on general policy reasons without any proper statutory justification. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, backed by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Dissenting opinions, however, argued there was a lack of standing, and that the states did not possess the right to sue in this case.

Legacy:

This landmark Supreme Court case solidified the concept that states have a special right to sue the federal government to protect their public lands, such as coastlines threatened by rising seas. The 2007 decision forced the EPA to later issue an official finding in 2009 that greenhouse gases do endanger human health and welfare. This is often perceived to be a significant turning point for science based climate action in the United States. Massachusetts v. EPA led to later restrictions on the fuel economy, as well as carbon limits for new vehicles. According to Georgetown Law, even justices who originally disagreed with the outcome now treat the case as established legal precedent. This case paved the way for rules on coal and gas power plants, overall promoting greater environmental health, furthermore backed by more recent findings such as the 2009 assessment on greenhouse gasses. This case established important precedent, remaining extremely relevant today.