Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2007

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

549 U.S. 497 | 127 S. Ct. 1438 | 167 L. Ed. 2d 248 | 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3785 | 75 U.S.L.W. 4149 | 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 128

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case held that greenhouse gases are Clean Air Act air pollutants, that Massachusetts could challenge EPA’s inaction, and that EPA had to ground any refusal to decide the endangerment question in the statute rather than broad policy objections.

Background

In 1999, private organizations petitioned EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. That provision requires EPA to prescribe standards for emissions of an "air pollutant" from new motor vehicles if, in the Administrator’s judgment, the emissions cause or contribute to air pollution reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Act defines welfare broadly to include effects on weather and climate.

EPA denied the petition in 2003. It first concluded that the Act did not authorize regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions for climate-change purposes. Alternatively, EPA said that regulation would be unwise at that time because of scientific uncertainty, the piecemeal nature of regulating only motor vehicles, the Administration’s preference for voluntary programs and research, and possible effects on foreign-policy negotiations.

Massachusetts, other States and local governments, and environmental organizations sought review in the D.C. Circuit. Judge Randolph’s opinion announcing the judgment concluded that EPA permissibly relied on scientific and policy considerations in denying rulemaking. Judge Sentelle would have found no Article III standing, but joined the judgment on the merits. Judge Tatel dissented, concluding that Massachusetts had standing and that EPA possessed authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Massachusetts had Article III standing to challenge EPA’s denial of the rulemaking petition.

Holding

Yes. Massachusetts established injury in fact, causation, and redressability sufficient to challenge EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles.

Reasoning

Massachusetts alleged a concrete and particularized injury: rising sea levels associated with global warming had already begun to consume coastal land, and threatened further loss of land and costly damage to state-owned coastal property. A harm does not cease to be concrete merely because it is widely shared.

The Commonwealth was entitled to “special solicitude” in the standing inquiry. As a sovereign State, Massachusetts had a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting its territory and an interest as a landowner. It also had a congressionally conferred procedural right to challenge EPA’s denial of a rulemaking petition.

EPA’s refusal to regulate new motor-vehicle emissions contributed to Massachusetts’s injury even though those emissions were only one part of a global problem. Federal regulation ordinarily proceeds incrementally, and U.S. motor vehicles emitted a meaningful share of global carbon dioxide. The fact that other countries also emit greenhouse gases did not eliminate EPA’s contribution to the risk.

A favorable decision could redress the injury by requiring EPA to reconsider whether to regulate emissions. Regulation would not need to solve global warming completely; reducing domestic emissions would slow the growth of greenhouse-gas concentrations and reduce Massachusetts’s risk to some extent. For a litigant asserting a procedural right, that possibility was sufficient.

Issue #2

Whether EPA’s denial of the petition for rulemaking was subject to judicial review.

Holding

Yes. EPA’s refusal to initiate rulemaking was reviewable under the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

Reasoning

An agency’s decision not to bring an enforcement action is ordinarily committed to agency discretion, but a refusal to begin rulemaking is different. Rulemaking denials more often turn on legal questions, are governed by procedural formalities, and require a public explanation.

The Clean Air Act expressly authorizes review of EPA action under § 202, and permits a court to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. Review of a rulemaking denial remains highly deferential, but it is not unavailable.

Issue #3

Whether greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are “air pollutants” that EPA may regulate under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.

Holding

Yes. Greenhouse gases fall within the Act’s broad definition of “air pollutant,” and EPA has statutory authority to regulate their emissions from new motor vehicles if the statutory endangerment criterion is met.

Reasoning

The Act defines an air pollutant as “any air pollution agent” or combination of agents, including “any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter” emitted into or otherwise entering the ambient air. The repeated use of “any” makes the definition sweeping. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons plainly are physical or chemical substances emitted into the air.

The statutory definition of welfare expressly includes effects on weather and climate. Thus, the fact that greenhouse gases affect the global climate rather than only local air quality did not take them outside the Act’s coverage.

EPA’s reliance on later congressional inaction and climate-related statutes was unpersuasive. A later Congress’s decision not to enact specific emission limits does not alter the meaning of the earlier, unambiguous statutory text. Statutes promoting research and interagency coordination can complement, rather than displace, EPA’s existing regulatory authority.

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. did not support EPA’s position. Unlike the tobacco statute at issue there, regulating greenhouse-gas emissions would not require an implausible result such as effectively banning a major product. Nor had Congress legislated against a consistent backdrop of EPA disclaiming authority; before this dispute, EPA had recognized that it possessed authority over carbon dioxide.

The Department of Transportation’s separate authority to set fuel-economy standards did not displace EPA’s environmental responsibilities. The agencies may have overlapping responsibilities, but DOT’s energy-efficiency mandate does not excuse EPA from carrying out its independent duty to protect public health and welfare.

Issue #4

Whether EPA lawfully declined to decide whether greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles endanger public health or welfare based on policy concerns unrelated to the statutory endangerment inquiry.

Holding

No. EPA’s denial was arbitrary and capricious because its stated reasons did not conform to the Clean Air Act’s required inquiry.

Reasoning

Section 202(a)(1) gives EPA discretion to form a judgment about whether an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. But that discretion is bounded by the statutory criterion; “judgment” is not a free-ranging license to decline regulation for reasons unrelated to endangerment.

If EPA determines that greenhouse gases cause or contribute to the requisite endangering air pollution, the statute provides that EPA shall regulate their emissions from new motor vehicles. EPA retains considerable discretion over the timing, content, and coordination of regulations, but its reasons for refusing to act on a petition must be grounded in the statute.

EPA relied instead on voluntary executive programs, concerns about piecemeal regulation, and possible effects on international negotiations. Those considerations did not explain whether greenhouse gases contribute to climate change or why EPA could not make the statutory endangerment judgment. The President’s foreign-affairs authority does not authorize EPA to refuse to execute a domestic statute.

Scientific uncertainty could justify delaying an endangerment decision only if the uncertainty prevented EPA from making a reasoned judgment. EPA needed to say that the science was too uncertain to decide the statutory question; a general preference not to regulate amid residual uncertainty was insufficient. The Court did not decide whether EPA must ultimately make an endangerment finding or what policy discretion it would have after such a finding.

Dissents

Chief Justice Roberts

Reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, arguing that the Chief Justice would have dismissed the case for lack of standing. In his view, the Court improperly created a special rule of “special solicitude” for States, even though Article III requires every plaintiff, including a State, to show injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The Clean Air Act’s judicial-review provision gives States no distinct standing rights, and the Court’s parens patriae cases do not relax constitutional standing requirements.

Massachusetts’s claimed loss of coastal land was, in his view, too speculative to satisfy injury in fact. The record did not adequately establish that existing sea-level changes had caused the claimed land loss, and predictions about loss by 2100 relied on uncertain climate projections and modeling with substantial margins of error.

The asserted injury was not fairly traceable to EPA’s refusal to regulate new motor vehicles, nor was it likely to be redressed by the requested regulation. New U.S. vehicles account for only a fraction of worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions, while the alleged coastal injury depends on a complex chain of global physical, economic, and governmental factors, including emissions from foreign nations beyond EPA’s control.

The Chief Justice viewed the majority’s approach as improperly turning courts into forums for resolving broad policy disputes. In his view, the mismatch between a worldwide climate problem and the narrow regulatory action sought showed why the dispute should be addressed by Congress and the Executive, not through relaxed standing rules in federal court.

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia joined the Chief Justice’s standing dissent and separately disagreed on the merits. He read § 202(a)(1) to give EPA broad discretion over whether and when to make the relevant endangerment judgment. The statute requires standards once the Administrator makes a qualifying judgment, but it does not require the Administrator to make that judgment whenever a private party files a rulemaking petition.

EPA’s policy reasons for deferring a decision were permissible, in his view. The agency reasonably considered the relationship between regulation and other Executive Branch programs, the risks of a piecemeal approach, technological development, scientific uncertainty, and foreign-policy consequences. Because the statute is silent on the reasons for deferring a judgment, those considerations were not divorced from the statutory text.

Justice Scalia also concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted “air pollutant.” The statutory definition requires not merely a physical or chemical substance in ambient air, but an “air pollution agent.” In his view, it was reasonable to conclude that globally dispersed greenhouse gases affecting upper-atmosphere climate processes were not the kind of ground-level or near-surface air pollution the Clean Air Act traditionally addressed.

At minimum, Justice Scalia believed the statutory language was ambiguous and EPA’s interpretation deserved Chevron deference. He criticized the majority for treating every airborne substance as an air pollutant and for substituting its preferred policy result for the agency’s reasoned interpretation of a broad regulatory statute.