Breaking: Supreme Court rules against Bush admin. in global warming case

This is a game changer 19

Word just came down that the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration in the landmark global warming case of Massachusetts v. EPA. The ruling was 5-4, with conservatives dissenting and the crucial vote of Anthony Kennedy going with the ... non-conservatives. Background on the case here, here, here, and here.

The court addressed three questions:

Do states and environmental groups have standing to sue EPA?

(To show legal standing, states had to show they would be harmed by the excess global warming that would occur without EPA regulations. This was the real sticking point, and it was at the center of the conservative justices' dissent.)

Verdict: Yes.

Does the EPA have the right to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act?

Verdict: Yes.

Can the EPA choose not to regulate CO2 emissions at its own discretion?

Verdict: The court told EPA to ... reconsider its claim that it has that discretion. Said majority opinion writer Justice John Paul Stevens: "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change." The court also offered EPA a laundry list of reasons why it should so regulate. [Update: That was wrong -- what the court did is reject what it called the EPA's "laundry list" of crappy reasons not to regulate.] In effect, the court put enormous pressure on EPA to regulate.

This is a huge, huge deal. The proximate effect is that California's pioneering efforts against climate change are safe from federal interference.

More broadly, the Supreme Court has put the weight of the judicial branch of the federal government behind the effort to fight global warming. There is no longer a shred of doubt, if there was any left, that federal action is inevitable.

Bush's isolation on this issue is now total. No one stands with him -- not Congress, not the business community, not the religious community, not the public at large, not the courts. Only James Inhofe. That's a grim assessment indeed.

(More background on the case from Environmental Defense, one of the plaintiffs.)

(Still more from ThinkProgress, and more yet from SCOTUSblog.)

(The Wall Street Journal energy blog has a round-up of reactions to the ruling.)

(More from Carl Pope, dissing Scalia's dissent, and from Jonathan Adler, supporting Roberts' dissent on the subject of standing.)

(More from Roger Pielke Jr.)

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Sam Wells Posted 2:46 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Cars and Trucks <?>My initial take is that the case has implications for the EPA to requires CO2 emission standards for motor vehicles such as on-road cars, trucks, and motorcycles.  If anybody knows if there are farther-reaching implications for off-road, fugitive area sources, and stationary industrial sources please let us know.  Most of the links I've tried are subscription-only, like GreenWire.  A lawyer did send a cut 'n' paste of a GreenWire notice to me that specifically mentioned only cars and trucks, though.  /sammie

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  2. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 2:48 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Yes, this is a huge deal...what I can't figure out is how the 4 "conservative" Justices ruled as they did. Roberts has been talking a lot about wanting to forge large majorities and how 5-4 rulings undermine the Court. It's one thing for the Chief Justice to be in the 5 in these close rulings, but it looks really bad to be in the 4. And this case didn't mandate any specific action or even that we need to regulate CO2- it only said that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 because, duh, climate change may actually affect the United States. Maybe some legal scholars can fill me in on why they choose to vote against this- it seems bizarre to me.
    J.S.

    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

    Permalink

  3. fallinggoat Posted 3:11 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Not Your Father's EPAThis decision is a blessing and omen at the same time.   A blessing because now the EPA will have to release reports and recommendations on CO2 emissions.   This will keep pressure on the Administration to show that it is in some way addressing the issue.  An omen because, as we've seen in the past, this Administration is absolutely awesome at ignoring empirical data, reproducing alternative versions of empirical data, and spinning contradictory misinformation to smoke out everybody in the room.   Endless heel-dragging and frivolous debating is probably going to be the order of the day.  
    After the US Attourney purge, it is not likely you will see much honest and independent thought coming out of the EPA (not that you would expect any).  In addition, groups like the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers will unbdoubtedly have spell-checking rights to these "scientific" reports as the utility corporations did when Cheney created our energy policy.

    It will be interesting to see if congress exerts any oversight this time around.

    Permalink

  4. 7wattbulb Posted 3:23 am
    02 Apr 2007

    not in the clear yetI'm as pleased with this decision as anyone else, but David's article is slightly misleading on one point.  If you look at page 5 of the decision (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf), the text reads (with my emphasis):
    "Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President's ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions."
    There's no doubt that the majority was less than pleased with the EPA's "laundry list", but they're still giving them an opportunity to offer a statutory rationale for not regulating GHGs.  Look forward to some very creative interpretations of the Clean Air Act in the coming months!

    Permalink

  5. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 3:29 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Re: Bush EPAFallinggoat, the ruling won't have much if any effect on the Bush administration, I suspect. Any EPA effort to regulate CO2 (yes, Sam, from cars and trucks only, at least as regards this case) would take a long time to formulate, and Bush will be gone by then. The main effect is to put another tool in the toolbox of the next president.
    I've gotta run to a meeting now -- there's plenty more to discuss on this case, though.

    www.grist.org

    Permalink

  6. chaim Posted 4:31 am
    02 Apr 2007

    global warmingWell according to one article Roberts  argued not on the merits of regulating or even if global warming is occuring but simply that the states did not standing to bring the suit.

    Permalink

  7. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 4:52 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Yeah,my sense is that Roberts' dissent turned on the question of standing. This from Bloomberg:Roberts said the court lacked constitutional power to second-guess the agency at the behest of states and environmental groups. The majority's reasoning "has caused us to transgress the proper -- and properly limited -- role of the courts in a democratic society," he wrote.
    Scalia said the court "has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

    www.grist.org

    Permalink

  8. moglig Posted 5:12 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Just cars and trucks, I thinkAs far as I know, the case just dealt with the part of the Clean Air Act pertaining to motor vehicles, not the part pertaining to stationary sources. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

    Permalink

  9. Bill Scher's avatar

    Bill Scher Posted 5:52 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Roberts: conservative judicial activistThe Roberts dissent shows the kind of Court he wants to lead, a conservative activist court that seeks to undermine laws passed by a democratically-elected Congress. His convoluted arguments about "standing" were an attempt to prevent citizens from accessing the courts to uphold the law. He was not named by Bush by accident. Any notion that he has "no agenda" and simply wants to "call balls and strikes," as he claimed in his hearing, should be put to rest.

    Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org

    Permalink

  10. lmoore Posted 6:14 am
    02 Apr 2007

    we're not there yet - but we can do itThe exciting news sure is piling up! California's new law, RGGI, the US-CAP announcement, Congressional hearings, and now this. (Incidentally, today the SCOTUS also ruled against Duke Energy, in a second reminder that the federal government can't ignore air pollution).
    As exciting as this is, however, the fight against global warming is ultimately up to Congress. We need a meaningful, economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, we know what that cap needs to be, so let's get started!
    Hopefully the next huge news will come from the Hill.  
    Lisa Moore, Ph.D.

    Environmental Defense

    http://www.climate411.org

    Permalink

  11. bkrell Posted 6:31 am
    02 Apr 2007

    This is still a landmark caseC'mon guys, we can second guess this all day long but this is still huge.  In what the courts did and in terms of the popular view of the issue. Sure, the administration is going to stall, but that was a foregone conclusion.  It would seem to me this provides an awful lot of impetus for any future administration, Republican or Democrat, to get CO2 regulation on track.  Not to do so now will result in myriad lawsuits. If there's one thing those of us in federal agencies enjoy, it's dealing with lawsuits. It'll be a vexing proposition to find political appointees (or even career ones) willing to follow the business as usual path things are on now....not impossible, but more difficult.

    Permalink

  12. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 7:24 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Next Gore Burns the Reichstag

    I guess AGWers can only get their way by fiat, not by democracy.
    This is a sad day in the country for liberty, for science and for sanity.
    Go ahead, regulate CO2.  
    And next the wind, and the water, and the starlight...

    The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com

    Permalink

  13. step back Posted 8:39 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Administrative Agency LawI have not had a chance to read it all, especially the dissents.
    This case comes in under a rather esoteric area of law known as "Administrative Agency Law". The EPA is one of those 4th branches of government known as an administrative agency.
    AA's cannot do whatever they want. They cannot engage in arbitrary and capricious decision making. See 5 USC 706.
    So one of the questions was, how much discretion does the EPA adminstrator have in making one of "his judgments"? The conservatives were arguing that it is near total discretion. The liberals said no, it had to more "reasonable" than that; and given that essentially all the scientists in the world are in agreement on GW, "reasonable" does not include an excuse like, I didn't regulate CO2 because I didn't feel like it; or I didn't regulate because I saw that commercial with the little girl blowing CO2 into a shedding dandelion and I was convinced that it's all good, all natural.

    Permalink

  14. David Roberts's avatar

    David Roberts Posted 9:08 am
    02 Apr 2007

    Step back,As I understand it, Scalia's point is that one of the legitimate "judgments" open to the EPA administrator is a purely political one: I won't regulate CO2 because Bush doesn't want me to.
    Can you imagine the Pandora's Box of Hackery that would open up if that were taken seriously at all AAs?
    See Pope's post for more on that point.

    www.grist.org

    Permalink

  15. Stephanie Ogburn's avatar

    Stephanie Ogburn Posted 10:48 am
    02 Apr 2007

    AmazingSo much happens in a day!  This is amazing.  Standing, standing, standing!  This really opens up the door for a lot of stuff.  So many enviro cases have been dismissed on standing grounds, green laywers have continued to try to push that limit, and now..this!  I have nothing more to contribute other than my hoorah!

    Stephanie



    http://www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

    Permalink

  16. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 11:47 am
    02 Apr 2007

    The ruling goes way beyond cars and trucks...http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/scotus_04-0 ...

    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

    Permalink

  17. amazingdrx Posted 2:12 pm
    02 Apr 2007

    Oh the sufferingThese poor bushwack enablers gonna be crying now.  That's a shame.  Hehey.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  18. random vagrant Posted 4:00 am
    03 Apr 2007

    hmmmpretty sweet, planet is still f*cked though.

    William A. McDonough is my hero.

    Permalink

  19. Gor Posted 6:54 am
    21 Aug 2007

    Globalhe I loove Bush. He is always caring about our Planet. Brave Superman!
    Gore, Celebrex Vioxx Project

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement