Massachusetts v. EPA

This case concerned whether the EPA had the ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The case was brought by twelve U.S. States, three cities, a U.S. territory, and thirteen NGO's to challenge the George W. Bush Administration EPA's decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA had not presented valid reasons in refusing to do so.

Background
Section 202(a)(1) of the U.S. Clean Air Act grants the EPA the authority to regulate "the emission of any air pollutant from...new motor vehicles...which in his judgement cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." Since the Clinton Administration, a debate had been occurring as to whether this provision allowed for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as a pollutant which could "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

Under the George W. Bush Administration, Joe Mendelson of the International Center for Technology Assessment filed a petition with the EPA arguing that they were legally required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA responded with a memo arguing that it did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and that even if it did, it would not exercise the authority.

In response, twelve U.S. States, three cities, a U.S. territory, and thirteen NGO's sued the EPA. The case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit where a split decision was rendered. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and were granted certiorari.

At issue was not only whether the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, but whether the plaintiffs in the case had standing at all. The plaintiffs claimed standing on the basis that they, their citizens or members, will in the future become the victim of global warming, which scientists say is caused by high emissions of (man-made) greenhouse gases, and which the EPA has refused to regulate.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Clean Air Act

Ruling
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did have standing and that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Court further ruled that the EPA had not presented valid reasons as to why it had refused to regulate greenhouse gases. The Court ordered the EPA to again consider the issue.

Takeaways
The case was a landmark climate litigation case in the United States. It established that the U.S. EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The case was the basis for actions such as the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan.

Despite the ruling, the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases has not been adequately utilized. The Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan was challenged in court, stayed, and then abandoned by the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration rolled back many Obama era attempts to regulate greenhouse gases.

The ruling also had mixed results for climate litigation in the sense that by placing the authority to regulate greenhouse gases with the EPA, Massachusetts v. EPA displaced common law tort in the area. This limited the ability for suits to be brought against polluters under Federal law (see American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut).

Recently, numerous U.S. states and municipalities have sought to get around this by bringing tort claims against the fossil fuel industry under state law.

Links

 * Sabin Center Database
 * Check out this podcast episode on Massachusetts v. EPA from the Outside/In podcast