Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentCivic Participation · 1 decade ago

what was the supreme court vote against the epa clean air act?

the supreme court voted in favor of the clean air act. how many supreme court members voted agianst?

2 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.


    Stevens' opinion for the Court

    The petitioners were found to have standing, the Clean Air Act does give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and the EPA is required to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions—specifically, its current rationale for not regulating was found to be inadequate, and the agency must articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

    In addition, the majority report commented that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

    [edit] Roberts' dissent

    First, the dissent condemns the majority's "special solicitude" conferred to Massachusetts as having no basis in Supreme Court cases dealing with standing. The dissent compares the majority opinion to "the previous high-water mark of diluted standing requirements," United States v. SCRAP (1973). Roberts then argues that the alleged injury (i.e., Massachusetts' loss of land because of rising sea levels) is too speculative and without adequate scientific support. The dissent also finds that even if there is a possibility that the state may lose some land because of global warming, the effect of obliging the EPA to enforce automobile emissions is hypothetical at best. There is not a traceable causal connection between the EPA’s refusal to enforce emission standards and petitioner’s injuries. Finally, the dissent finds that redressability of the injuries is even more problematic given that countries such as India and China are responsible for the majority of the greenhouse-gas emissions. The Chief Justice concludes by accusing the majority of lending the Court as a convenient forum for policy debate and of transgressing the limited role afforded to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Constitution.

    [edit] Scalia's dissent

    First, Justice Scalia found that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case because petitioners lack standing. In his estimation, that is the end of the inquiry. However, since the majority saw fit to find standing, his dissent continued.

    The main question is, "Does anything require the Administrator to make a 'judgment' whenever a petition for rulemaking is filed?" Justice Scalia sees the Court's answer to this unequivocally as yes, but with no authority to back it. He backs this assertion by explaining that the "statute says nothing at all about the reasons for which the Administrator may defer making a judgment—the permissible reasons for deciding not to grapple with the issue at the present time. Scalia saw no basis in law for the Court's imposed limitation.

    When the Court opines that "If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so," Scalia responded that EPA has done precisely that, in the form of the National Research Council panel that researched climate-change science.

    Resting the heart of his dissent on the Court's abdication of applying Chevron deference, he closes with the notion that no matter how important the policy issue in question, the Court should defer to the more experienced and reasoned judgment of the agency.

  • faulds
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    The Republicans do no longer incredibly choose to get rid of or postpone the EPA regulations. The Republican leaders are actually not stupid. particularly they choose to be waiting to declare that they voted to get rid of the EPA regulations, yet their noble efforts have been blocked with the help of the Democrats. This keeps the subject alive as a political warm button. they have used comparable techniques on abortion, prayer in faculties, funds deficits, government inefficiency, and border administration. during the element of the Bush presidency whilst the Republicans had administration of the two Congress and the White abode they did little or no longer something to handle or come to a call those subjects. particularly they use those subjects to generate controversy and energize their base. If those subjects have been resolved they could have little to talk approximately. so as that they opt to maintain the controversies alive. edit: and that i ought to upload that multiple the Republicans in Congress and many Republican occasion members at abode are actually not in in this as a great conspiracy; they are merely dups- being further alongside for the experience - reciting the day's talking factors as directed with the help of the management.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.