Home  ›  Citizens Agains the Refinery V. Epa 1981

Citizens Agains the Refinery V. Epa 1981

Written By Monday, April 4, 2022 Add Comment Edit
Administrative State-5 Circles-dark text-straight with header-edited.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Massachusetts 5. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket number: 05-1120
Court: Usa Supreme Court
Court membership
Main Justice
John Roberts
Acquaintance Justices
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven Chiliad. Breyer
John Paul Stevens • Samuel Alito • David Souter

Massachusetts 5. Environmental Protection Agency is a 2007 United states of america Supreme Courtroom ruling that establish that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are air pollutants nether the Make clean Air Act and tin be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The case: Massachusetts, xi other states, and several environmental advocacy organizations petitioned the EPA requesting the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant.

  • The issue: Does the EPA have legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? Does the EPA accept discretion not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions for policy reasons under the Clean Air Human activity?

  • The outcome: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from motor vehicles if they are found to be endangering public wellness and welfare.

    • In brief: The petitioners argued that COii and other gases from motor vehicles contribute 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 must 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 non endanger public health and welfare. The EPA later issued a finding in 2009 arguing that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to human-caused climatic change and thus should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

    Why information technology matters: In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal agency does not have the discretion to cite policy preferences as a reason for refusing to regulate certain issues nether its purview.

    Background

    The Administrative State Project
    The Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    • Judicial deference
    • Nondelegation
    • Executive control
    • Procedural rights
    • Agency dynamics
    Click hither for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia

    The federal Clean Air Human action requires the federal authorities to regulate air pollution from mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, and stationary sources, such every bit 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, does not refer to climate change or greenhouse gases. The act authorizes the administrator of the Ecology Protection Bureau (EPA) to ready motor vehicle emission standards for "any air pollutant" (as quoted from the Clean Air Human activity). The EPA administrator must issue a finding explaining how an air pollutant from a motor vehicle causes or contributes to whatsoever air pollution "which may reasonably be predictable to endanger public health or welfare." In 1999, Massachusetts and 11 other states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Bailiwick of 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 Social club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, amid others. The petitioners argued that CO2 and other gases from motor vehicles contribute to global warming and climate change, which they argued "may reasonably be anticipated to endangered public wellness or welfare" under the Make clean Air Human action.

    In 2003, the EPA denied the petition. The agency argued that it did non accept legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide and other, similar gases as air pollutants. In addition, the EPA argued that if information technology did have the say-so it would not regulate carbon dioxide because it would interfere with the George W. Bush administration's preferred policy approach to human-caused climatic change. These policies included voluntary international climate agreements rather than Clean Air Deed regulations. The EPA argued that it would not make a connection between carbon dioxide and human-acquired climate change before the bureau 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'due south position. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court of the Us, which heard the case in November 2006. The court issued its ruling in Apr 2007 and sided with the petitioners.[1]

    Decision

    Questions earlier the court:
    1. Tin can the EPA regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant equally defined by the Clean Air Act?
    2. Does the EPA take discretion non to issue motor vehicle emissions standards for policy reasons nether the Clean Air Human action?
    Conclusions:
    one. Yes, the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide every bit an air pollutant because the definition of air pollutants under the human activity permits the regulation of any air pollutant.
    ii. No, the EPA cannot cite policy reasons to justify non issuing motor vehicle emissions standards nether the Make clean Air Act.

    Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion.

    Past a vote of five-4, the U.Due south. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts and against the EPA. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion.[2]

    First, the court argued that Massachusetts and the ecology advocacy groups had continuing to challenge the EPA in court. To have standing in a lawsuit, one side must demonstrate it has connection to the police force or action it is challenging and show that it would be harmed past the constabulary or activity. Massachusetts argued that it would injured or harmed by the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide. Writing for the majority, Stevens argued that Massachusetts could face up harm or injury in the form of rising body of water levels forth its coasts if the EPA did not regulate carbon dioxide emissions. "Given [the] EPA's failure to dispute the beingness 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]

    2nd, the court wrote that the EPA had legal authorisation 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 like gases equally air pollutants. The court argued that the act'south definition of air pollutant is capacious and can encompass several physical and chemical substances released into the air.[two]

    Tertiary, the EPA argued that if it had legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and similar gases under the Clean Air Human action, the decision would conflict with the George W. Bush administration's preferred policies to accost homo-caused climate change issues. The courtroom rejected the EPA's argument that the bureau has the discretion to delay regulatory action on carbon dioxide based on its policy priorities. "Under the [Clean Air Human activity]'due south clear terms, [the] EPA can avoid promulgating regulations but if information technology determines that greenhouse gases practice not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable caption as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to decide whether they do," Stevens wrote. The courtroom'due south majority argued that the EPA'south specific reasons for delaying the issue were unjustified under the Clean Air Human activity.[ii]

    Dissent

    Roberts' dissent

    Principal Justice John Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion. He was joined past 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 every bit the potentially rising body of water levels and the loss of Massachusetts' coastal state—was not physical enough to warrant the lawsuit. Roberts argued that "the connectedness is far likewise speculative to establish causation" betwixt the EPA's decision non to regulate carbon dioxide and concrete harm to Massachusetts from homo-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 part of the courts ... is to decide concrete cases—non to serve equally a user-friendly 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 stance. Like Roberts, Scalia wrote that he would deny legal continuing to Massachusetts and the other petitioners. Regarding the issue of the EPA'south discretion in not regulating carbon dioxide, Scalia argued that the Make clean Air Act does not say anything specific about what reasons the EPA may or may not use non 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 inbound a new field. ... There is no ground in law for the Court's imposed limitation," Scalia wrote. In addition, Scalia argued that he would have immune the EPA to defer any conclusion on carbon dioxide emissions. "No thing how of import the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business organisation substituting its own desired upshot for the reasoned judgment of the responsible bureau," Scalia wrote.[4]

    Response

    Ecology organizations involved with the Massachusetts case supported the ruling. The Natural Resource Defense Quango (NRDC), a nonprofit environmental advocacy group and a petitioner in the example, supported the ruling. "Today the nation's highest court has gear up the [Bush-league] White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Make clean Air Act gives EPA the power to showtime cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate," said David Doniger, the group's attorney during the case. Greenpeace, an ecology advocacy organization and petitioner in the instance, argued that the ruling would result in federal regulatory deportment on human-caused climate change. "At a time when we can await no longer for action on global warming, this is exactly the impetus needed to motion the [Bush] administration towards concrete action," said John Passacantando, Greenpeace'south executive director. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group of auto manufacturers that sided with the EPA, argued in favor a federal policy regulating carbon dioxide emissions. "The Brotherhood of Automobile Manufacturers believes that there needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases," said Dave McCurdy, the group'southward president.[5] [6]

    EPA activeness

    The EPA began regulating greenhouse gas emissions in 2009-2010.

    The George W. Bush administration left office without a decision on whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and welfare. The U.Southward. Ecology Protection Agency (EPA) revisited the issue in 2009 under the Barack Obama assistants. The Clean Air Act requires a finding on how a specific air pollutant may contribute to or crusade air pollution that may endanger public wellness or welfare. The finding, known equally an endangerment finding, is 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 6 gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, contributed to human-caused global warming and climate change. The EPA issued a 2nd 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 chemic substance under the Clean Air Act.[7] [viii]

    In 2010, the EPA issued carbon dioxide regulations for motor vehicles. New light-duty vehicles, which include 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 like standards. In 2012, the EPA required all light-duty vehicles for the 2017-2025 model years to meet federal carbon dioxide standards.[nine] [10] [eleven]

    In 2010, the EPA required stationary sources of carbon dioxide and similar gases to obtain structure and operating permits for their emissions. The regulation applied to power plants, refineries, cement production facilities, and other large facilities.[12]

    Legal challenges

    Afterward the U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau (EPA) began regulating carbon dioxide and similar gases in 2010-2011, states and industry groups challenged the EPA'due south regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the Commune of Columbia Circuit. States joining the lawsuit included Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Southward Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. United states disputed the EPA'south finding that carbon dioxide and similar gases endanger public health and welfare. They argued that the conclusion was not supported by the EPA's administrative record.[13]

    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.South. National Academy of Sciences and the Un' Intergovernmental Console on Climate Change, among others. The court upheld the EPA'south decision most carbon dioxide. "The body of scientific evidence marshaled past [the] EPA in support of the [connection between greenhouse gases and public health] is substantial. ... Relying again upon substantial scientific prove, [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 information within [the federal agencies'] expertise." The court as well dismissed u.s.' remaining challenges, arguing that the states lacked standing. Specifically, the court argued that u.s.a. failed to demonstrate how they would harmed or injured by the EPA's regulations and failed to demonstrate how rescinding the regulations would redress potential injuries.[13] [14]

    See also

    • Make clean Air Act
    • Implementation of the Clean Air Act
    • Climatic change

    External links

    Further reading

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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Massachusetts et al. c. Environmental Protection Agency et al.," October term 2006
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. EPA," April two, 2007
    3. ↑ Cornell University Schoolhouse of Constabulary, "Massachusetts 5. EPA - Roberts' Dissent," accessed October 12, 2015
    4. ↑ Cornell University Schoolhouse of Law, "Massachusetts v. EPA - Scalia'south Dissent," accessed October 12, 2015
    5. ↑ Natural Resources Defence force Council, "Supreme Court: Heat-Trapping Carbon Dioxide is Pollution," Apr 2, 2007
    6. ↑ Greenpeace, "Greenpeace Applauds Supreme Court Conclusion on Greenhouse Gas Emissions," accessed October 12, 2015
    7. ↑ U.Southward. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regulatory Initiatives (Climate Change)," accessed September eleven, 2014
    8. ↑ U.South. Ecology Protection Agency, "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases nether Section 202(a) of the Make clean Air Deed," December vii, 2009
    9. ↑ U.Southward. Ecology Protection Agency, "EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks," April i, 2010
    10. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regulations & Standards: Heavy-Duty," May seven, 2010
    11. ↑ U.S. Ecology Protection Bureau, "Regulations & Standards: Lite-Duty," Baronial 28, 2012
    12. ↑ U.S. Ecology Protection Bureau, "Regulatory Initiatives," accessed October 13, 2015
    13. ↑ 13.0 thirteen.1 Eye for Climate and Free energy Solutions, "Clean Air Act Cases," accessed Oct 13, 2015
    14. ↑ U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Commune of Columbia, "Coalition for Responsible Regulation 5. Environmental Protection Agency," June 26, 2012

    v•eastward

    The Administrative State Projection
    Main

    The Authoritative State Projection main page • Administrative State Projection Index • Glossary of administrative state terms • Quotes about the administrative state • Administrative state • Rulemaking • Deference • Arbitrament • Nondelegation doctrine

    		 The Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Reporting

    Changes to the Federal Annals • Completed OIRA review of federal administrative bureau rules • Federal agency rules repealed nether the Congressional Review Act • Historical additions to the Federal Annals, 1936-2016 • Pages added monthly to the Federal Annals, 1995-2017
    Laws

    Administrative Procedure Human activity • 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 Committee Act of 1914 • Liberty of Data Act • Government in the Sunshine Human action • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Deed • Interstate Commerce Human action • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Human activity • REINS Act • REINS Deed (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Human activity • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases

    Abbott Laboratories five. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. five. United States • Clan of Information Processing Service Organizations 5. Army camp • Auer five. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defence Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park 5. Volpe • Federal Merchandise Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Visitor of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration 5. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.Westward. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United states • Lucia five. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow'southward • 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. five. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • U.s.a. five. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation five. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Ability Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. Usa Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard five. Filburn • Wiener v. United states

    Terms

    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Authoritative police force gauge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Ceremonious retainer • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (authoritative state) • Comment menstruum • Compliance costs • Congressional Tape • Coordination (authoritative country) • Deference (administrative country) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte advice (administrative country) • Executive bureau • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final dominion • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (constabulary) • Functionalism (police force) • Guidance (administrative country) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Breezy rulemaking • Articulation resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter of the alphabet • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory nighttime matter • Regulatory impact assay • Regulatory policy officeholder • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Hire seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Hazard assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Pregnant 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 Bargain" by Cass R. Sunstein (1987)
    • Federalist No. 23 by Alexander Hamilton (1787)
    • "From Administrative Country 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 Country" 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 Land" 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 Dominion of Law" past Richard A. Epstein (2008)
    Agencies

    Administrative Briefing of the U.s.a. • U.s.a. Civil Service Commission • U.S. Government Accountability Office • U.S. Part of Information and Regulatory Affairs • U.S. Office of Direction and Budget

    v•e

    Ballotpedia
    About

    Overview • What people are saying • Back up Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Master Operating Officeholder • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Applied science Strategy

    Communications: Megan Brown • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
    External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jimmy McAllister
    Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Manager • Nathan Bingham • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial

    Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Josh Altic, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora

    weaverarans1936.blogspot.com

    Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

    0 Response to "Citizens Agains the Refinery V. Epa 1981"

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Iklan Atas Artikel

    Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

    Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

    Iklan Bawah Artikel