Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Supreme Smackdown

In an opinion released yesterday, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's arguments that that the US Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to regulate carbon-dioxide in automobile emissions. The Court also ruled that the EPA did not have the "discretion" to refuse to regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.


The 5-to-4 decision was a complete smackdown of the Bush anti-environmental policies. Bush's EPA argued that it did not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it didn't have to if it didn't want to. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

A little background . . . . the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g).

The plaintiffs in this case petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. The EPA refused, arguing that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority, it wouldn't regulate the emissions because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established.

The EPA was forced to modify its position when the case got to Court -- facts have a funny way of doing that to talking points. As the Supreme Court explained the position taken by the agency, it's not that greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, it's that the problem is bigger than auto emissions:
EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. . . . EPA nevertheless maintains that its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that the agency cannot be haled into federal court to answer for them.
The argument was spurious, and the Court gave it the back of its hand:
But EPA overstates its case. Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum. Yet accepting that premise would doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop.
Going nowhere with that one, the EPA then argued -- get this -- that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were not "air pollutants". The Court's response to the Bush Administration's claim that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant is the judicial equivalent of "you gots to be kiddin me":
The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.
The Bush government's other arguments were even weaker and, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court basically told Bush and the EPA: "do your damn job" --
Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. Ibid. To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design. . . . [The President's] authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.
"[The President's] authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws." -- about time someone told him that.

Guess who dissented? Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas.

In the media:

Portland (ME) Press Herald: Justices side with Maine in two air pollution cases
Time: High Court Rebukes Bush on Pollution
Modesto Bee: Court: Clear the Air
Slate: Sin of Emission
San Francisco Chronicle: Ruling helps California battle global warming
Chicago Tribune: EPA must regulate greenhouse gases
WaPo: High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions
NYTimes: Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases

2 comments:

a.k.a. Blandly Urbane said...

hey, hey, you're on the front page of RCP with this in the "Opinion Buzztracker"

A Big Fat Slob said...

kewl. Hey, Mom, lokkit what I did!

Thanks, blandly.