Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Massachusetts v. EPA global warming case

Justice Kennedy sides with the expansive-standing wing of the Court, which rules 5-4 that (in Jonathan Adler's words) "(a) states have standing to sue the EPA alleging injuries from climate change, (b) the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as 'pollutants' under the Clean Air Act, and (c) the EPA did not adequately justify its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Act." Jonathan Adler has breaking coverage. Earlier: AEI event. Elsewhere: SCOTUSblog.

As Justice Roberts notes in his dissent, the expansion of standing makes it seem like "a lawyer�s game, rather than a fundamental limitation ensuring that courts function as courts and not intrude on the politically accountable branches." I've previously noted the tendency of the Rehnquist Court to rule in such a manner to give them more flexibility to rule on ever larger areas of American life in future cases, and this opinion from what is becoming the Stevens/Kennedy Court is certain to increase the use of regulation through litigation.

Update: Adler has a roundup of links.



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.