Supreme Court decides Massachusetts v. EPA

[garuda]

Random post for me, and prolly old news to many, but today the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and that it must reconsider its decision that it does not have to take action to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. Covered in the NY times, etc., but thought it should be called out here too, one small step.

[summit]

EPA: "Greenhouse gas emissions are not any of our business."
SCOTUS: "Oh yes they are!"

What happens next I wonder...

[char]

EPA: "Greenhouse gas emissions are not any of our business."
SCOTUS: "Oh yes they are!"

What happens next I wonder...

They will probably spend the next 10 years "studying" the scientific efforts to date. Then release preliminary rules, which won't take effect for another 5 years.

[Rontele]

EPA: "Greenhouse gas emissions are not any of our business."
SCOTUS: "Oh yes they are!"

What happens next I wonder...

I am quite pleased with the decision and surprised. Justice Kennedy was clearly the swing vote and usually votes far more conservative with respect to standing to bring suits in federal court (an important issue in this case). The Stevens' opinion for the Court was well thought out. Interestingly, he concluded the opinion by noting that the Court in no way suggests that they decide what the EPA does (citing to Chevron). This signals to me, therefore, that this was a measured approach to capture Kennedy. If the Court would have told the EPA that they had to regulate greenhouse gases then my guess is that Kennedy would have jumped ship to the conservatives and decided the case on standing. By ruling only that the EPA has been delegated the authority to control for greenhouse gases is a decision that is consistent with existing case law (Chevron) and doesn't give the impression that the Court is making the hard policy decisions (which it is by the nature of the case, but still leaves the expertise of the final decisions with the politically accountable agency).

As I told my conservative friends at school, today. "This is our revenge for FDA v. Brown and Williamson."

And Summit, to clarify, the EPA can still decide now not to regualte greenhouse gases, they just have to do a better job of explaining why they are not going to do it rather than "we don't have jurisdiction to do so."

[Jer]

garuda - did your mom have any kids that lived?

[SponsoredByDuctTape]

I am quite pleased with the decision and surprised. Justice Kennedy was clearly the swing vote and usually votes far more conservative with respect to standing to bring suits in federal court (an important issue in this case). The Stevens' opinion for the Court was well thought out. Interestingly, he concluded the opinion by noting that the Court in no way suggests that they decide what the EPA does (citing to Chevron). This signals to me, therefore, that this was a measured approach to capture Kennedy. If the Court would have told the EPA that they had to regulate greenhouse gases then my guess is that Kennedy would have jumped ship to the conservatives and decided the case on standing. By ruling only that the EPA has been delegated the authority to control for greenhouse gases is a decision that is consistent with existing case law (Chevron) and doesn't give the impression that the Court is making the hard policy decisions (which it is by the nature of the case, but still leaves the expertise of the final decisions with the politically accountable agency).

As I told my conservative friends at school, today. "This is our revenge for FDA v. Brown and Williamson."

And Summit, to clarify, the EPA can still decide now not to regualte greenhouse gases, they just have to do a better job of explaining why they are not going to do it rather than "we don't have jurisdiction to do so."

I just did an in-class group presentation on this case last week. My colleagues and I, as well as the majority of the class, came to the conclusion that the Sup. Ct. would avoid the main issue and punt on the basis of standing. We considered the probability of the Court actually getting to the merits of the case to the be least likely outcome. I'm pleasantly surprised by the decision. It seems that Kennedy has truly assumed the role of the swing vote, given this decision and his concurrence in Rapanos v. U.S., and it seems that he is more likely than the more conservative judges on the Court to tackle the merits of some of these tougher cases.

Here in California, we're still waiting on the decision in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon. That case involves the State adoption of more strict vehicle emission standards pertaining to new car emissions of CO2. The vehicle manufacturers say that CA can't regulate CO2 because the State is preempted by federal (EPA) regulations (which, for CO2, don't exist). The State says that their exemption from federal automobile emission standards (allowing CA to have auto emission standards far more strict than the federal guidelines) includes exemption from following the non-existent federal CO2 standards for motor vehicles. CA is trying to get a jump on regulating greenhouse gasses. It'll be interesting to see what happens here in CA in light of the Sup. Ct. decision and forthcoming EPA regulations.

End legal talk.

[stihletto]

interesting article:
supreme court ruling doesn't mean epa will regulate co2 emissions

[Rontele]

interesting article:
supreme court ruling doesn't mean epa will regulate co2 emissions

Right, which they shouldn't decide since because separation of powers and comity between coordinate branches of government should leave that decision to a politically accountable branch. They merely reaffirm that the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate. This sets the stage for the EPA to regulate should the Dems win in '08. A brilliant opinion by Stevens to measure the outcome and capture Kennedy.

And I agree with the previous poster that Kennedy is becoming a key and crucial ally to liberals on environmental cases. His Rapanos concurrence is considered the law.