In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency twelve states and several cities and organizations brought suit against the EPA to force the agency to regulate emissions and greenhouse gases. In 2003, the Administrator of the EPA determined that the EPA lacked the power to regulate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, should the EPA have that authority, it declined to make such regulations. The petitioners, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, the city of New York and a number of environmental organizations, as well as other states, cities and territories, asserted that the EPA does have authority in this matter and in fact, the decision to not regulate greenhouse emissions exceeded the scope of the EPA.
This case required judicial clarification of the Clean Air Act. The issues in this case were whether carbon dioxide is, in fact, an air pollutant causing air pollution in terms of the language of the Clean Air Act. The language in the Clean Air Act is quite broad, and thusly, if the court finds that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, the EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the petitioners, agreeing that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases were within the Clean Air Act's definition of an air pollutant, and therefore, the EPA was required to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions, particularly in relation to automobiles. Further proceedings in the lower courts may be expected after this decision.
Click here to learn more about Steven Jannace of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg