Massachusetts v. EPA

The petitioners accepted argument was that they did have the standing to challenge the EPA's denial of their petition stating: the EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presenting an "actual" and "imminent" risk making it a justiciable Article III "Controvers[y]", The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized, The EPA overstating its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioners' injuries, The EPA has a duty to slow or reduce the effects of climate change even if they can't reverse it, greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant", the reasoning that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases it would be unwise to do so at this time is divorced from the statutory text. The Opinion of the Court reinforced all of these points while the dissenting opinion argued that there was no concrete imminent or potential risk, and thus, under Article III, the petitioners had no standing.
 * http://climatecasechart.com/case/massachusetts-v-epa/
 * http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2007/20070402_docket-05-1120_opinion.pdf