This decision dealt with environmental matters and was regarded as one of the most important environmental Supreme Court decisions in years. If one in the present age delves into this case, the insights would have a grave impact on the pollution control and globalization boom. The case begins with the State of Massachusetts and several other states, cities and environmental groups that petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The petition was based on requesting EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from new motor vehicles that contributed elaborately to global warming. Massachusetts argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate these ?greenhouse gases.' This act states that Congress must regulate ?any air pollutant' that can ?reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' However, the case proceeds when EPA denied the petition, claiming that the Clean Air Act does and did not authorize the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. EPA added that even if it did execute this responsibility, the Agency had the discretion to defer a decision until more research could be executed on ?the causes, extent and significance of climatic changes and the potential options for addressing it.' Massachusetts appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a divided panel ruled in favor of EPA. The case was then brought before the United States Supreme court. The court had to answer three questions. The first question stressed on whether the petitioners had a standing to sue. The second question was whether EPA had the authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. Finally, whether the reason alleged by EPA was to deny the petition that was consistent.
[...] But the court considered that reducing automobile emission had an important influence over the climate changes. Eventually, the third condition (ie "it is likely that a favorable decision will redress the injury") was completed according to the court because even though the regulation of greenhouse gas will not by itself reverse the climate changes, it would slow the pace of global emission increase. As a consequence the Court concluded that Massachusetts had standing before its jurisdiction and because a case may proceed as long as at least one plaintiff is found to have standing, the court did not rule the standing of the other petitioners. [...]
[...] Chief Justice Roberts was also involved in that effort. The question now is to know whether the Court will confirm this tendency or whether Chief Justice Roberts will implement his influence as Chief Justice to reverse the decision. [...]
[...] EPA also argued that because of some scientific uncertainties surrounding the climate changes, it would not regulate the greenhouse gases for the moment. But this was irrelevant for the Court and it did not allow EPA to avoid its statutory obligations. EPA must regulate greenhouse gases if there are enough information underlining a potential danger. Scientific uncertainties are not a reason to elude this statutory regulation. Thus, EPA had no showed reasoned explanation to expose its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to a climate change. [...]
[...] Moreover EPA failed to prove that Congress meant to reduce its power to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutant as the Court proved, on the contrary, that Congress was aware of the climate changes and wanted to regulate trough its agencies any air pollutant "that may endanger the public welfare". Eventually, EPA's argument that regulating carbon dioxide emissions was not possible because it would require to tighten mileage standards, which is the job of the Department of Transportation, was found irrelevant by the Court. Indeed this was not a reason for EPA to elude its duty of protection of the public's health and welfare. [...]
[...] Massachussets versus Environmental Protection Agency This decision dealt with environmental matters and is one of the most important environmental Supreme Court decisions in years. In that case, the State of Massachusetts and several other states, cities and environmental groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency asking EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from new motor vehicles that contribute to global warming. Massachusetts argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate these "greenhouse gases". This act states that Congress must regulate "any air pollutant" that can "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." EPA denied the petition, claiming that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
