Tess Hansen

LSJ 200: Massachusetts v. EPA

1. The state of Massachusetts as well as twelve other states, sued the Environmental Protection
Agency due to their inability to adhere to the Clean Air Act and their lack in regulating motor
vehicles that emit potent air pollutants, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases that
contribute to the global warming effect and rise in sea levels.
2. Standing means the petitioners have a clear injury, proof of the respondents causal
connection to the injury and a possibility to redress. Standing is a critical issue in this case
because the petitioner is characterized by a state rather than an individual. The court concluded
the state warrants standing since Massachusetts coastal areas are directly affected, and the Clean
Air Act protects public health or welfare. The rise of sea levels associated with global warming
is an eminent harm to the public, and could be remediated through redress.
3. The primary disagreement between the state of Massachusetts and the EPA is whether the
Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor
vehicles. The majority of the Court believes that the EPA does have this responsibility. The Act
states that the EPA must prescribe and regulate the amount of air pollutants emitted by motor
vehicles. The ambiguous term air pollutant, creates debate. The majority believes the term
encompasses all airborne compounds while the EPA believes the term is too vague and
nondescript.
4. Another disagreement centers on the advisability of using the EPA to address issues of global
warming. Firstly, this issue is of worldwide significance. Yet the Court maintains that it is
imperative we ameliorate these issues on a domestic scale. The EPA argues that the
responsibility should be placed on the Department of Transportation, which tightens mileage
standards. The Court states that the task of the EPA to protect the public should never, under
any circumstance, be diminished.
5. In the Opinion of the Court, Judge Stevens explains that the terms of the Clean Air Act are
clear: the EPA must take responsibility unless it can argue that the greenhouse effect does not
contribute to global warming. Scientific studies prove that the worldwide global temperature and
sea levels are rising dangerously. The EPAs capricious and arbitrary actions did not to
comply with the Clean Air Act and were harmful to public wellbeing and health.
6. Roberts dissents, stating that the court room is not the grounds for litigation regarding the
environment. This should take place on a legislative level or through global treaties. Article III of
the Constitution states courts should resolve cases or controversies. According to the dissent,
the state of Massachusetts, even under quasi-sovereign state interest, cannot have legitimate
standing.
7. The second argument in the dissent is about the realities of global warming. Roberts argues
that the consequences of global warming are speculative while the majority uses scientific
research to assert rising global temperatures and sea levels. The injury, according to the dissent,
is precautionary and not palpable. It is therefore not legitimate as since there is not
particularized injury and climate change issues are harmful to humanity at large, no clear cause
or redress can be ascertained.