SCOTUS Says EPA Can Regulate Carbon

ThanatosMinor writes "In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, saying that the EPA's reasons for not doing so in the past were 'arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.' The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate carbon. But concerns about global climate change and its ties to human activity did appear to be deciding factors in the case." The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.

Comments

Re:YRO?

[terraformer]

Ahh, it is pretty clear actually. Those are electrons powering your computer and there are electrons making your network run and there are electrons lighting up your screen, etc, etc...

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[theodicey]

Actually, it's pretty much only Scalia who thinks he's smart enough to evaluate climate change. He got smacked down in oral argument:

"Scalia observes that there is a difference between an "air pollutant" and a "stratospheric pollutant." Milkey interrupts: "Respectfully, Your Honor. It is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere."

Not about Global Warming

[Brandybuck]

I know that many of you are cheering that the SCOTUS turned Green and environmentalist, but that's not the case. This ruling isn't about global warming, or carbon, or even Al Gore's haircut. The ruling merely says that an executive department must stay within the bounds of a legislative statute. That the department happens to be the EPA and the statute the Clean Air Act is merely incidental.

To quote: "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."

Re:Politician claims CO2 not an air pollutant...

[Saint V Flux]

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Volcanoes, vents in the earth, every living creature, decomposition, etc all release CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants require CO2 as well and without plants humans and animals cease to exist. So yea, lets get right on eliminating CO2 and the subsequent annihilation of the human race.

Dissent

[Dirck_the_Noorman]

From Scalia's dissent: The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. From Roberts' dissent: The realities make it pure conjecture to suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land...The mismatch suggests that petitioners' true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases--not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ("[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action")...The limitation of the judicial power to cases and controversies "is crucial in maintaining the tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution." http://tinyurl.com/yttruw

Re:Enough Already...

[hxnwix]

OK, troll. I'll bite.

Have you thought about growing a brain?

Obviously not.

Re:No change

[oliphaunt]

This sounds good, until you know the name of the case you're quoting:

If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce".

If this is a troll, it's a clever one: you're using the Dredd Scott decision to support your argument that Congress can't use the Commerce Clause to justify the EPA. But Dredd Scott was famously overturned. You should know better than to base an argument on an overturned decision, which is the only reason I question your intent in making the parent post.

Where does the EPA derive its power from?

The EPA derives its power from the Commerce Clause, like many other Federal agencies created by Act of Congress. And I won't argue interstate jurisdictional hooks or necessary and proper or rational basis with you here. I think you're taking an argument that was crafted to oppose Roe v. Wade by comparing it to Dredd Scott, and trying to apply it to this case. Write me up for No Sale.

I do agree with CJ Roberts' dissent(pdf, the Roberts dissent starts on page 39) in this case, that the Court should have declined to hear it in the first place becuase the state of Massachusetts lacks standing, which is not at all the same thing as lacking power under the Commerce Clause.

Re:Important side note

[mdsolar]

Thanks! I'm just reading the opinion. Apparently the EPA argued that by misbehaving itself, it gained leverage over other countries. Wow.

EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said that a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, 68 Fed. Reg. 52932, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President's ability to negotiate with "key developing nations" to reduce emissions, id., at 52931, and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect "an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue," ibid.

Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. In particular, while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws. In the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, Congress authorized the State Department--not EPA--to formulate United States foreign policy with reference to environmental matters relating to climate. See 1103(c), 101 Stat. 1409. EPA has made no showing that it issued the ruling in question here after consultation with the State Department. Congress did direct EPA to consult with other agencies in the formulation of its policies and rules, but the State Department is absent from that list. 1103(b).