U.S. Supreme Court Heats Up Over Global Warming

On November 29, 2006, the Supreme Court wrestled with the problematic issues surrounding global warming and the government's efforts to halt this trend. Lengthy arguments in the Supreme Court, entrenched in scientific discussion, left little indication as to how the court would rule.

There are two distinct issues addressed in Massachusetts v. EPA currently before the court. The first is whether the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate air pollutants that contribute to climate change, and if so, whether the EPA properly used its discretion when it chose not to regulate auto emissions. The second is whether states have the right to sue, on behalf of state citizen safety, to force the EPA to take action on pollutants from cars and other polluting sources.

As recently reported by MCT News Service, politically "the justices appeared to cleave along familiar lines. More conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts appeared skeptical both of the EPA's authority and the states' rights to sue. Meanwhile, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were more accepting of both ideas."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has recently been described as the "swing vote" on the court, is left with the critical tie-breaking vote if the other justices are consistent with prior rulings on similar issues.

The assistant attorney general from Massachusetts, arguing on behalf of his state, painted a potentially grizzly portrait for the justices if global warming were to continue the way some scientists predict. Specifically, he argued that his state has over 200 miles of coastline which would be flooded by rising ocean levels.

Massachusetts filed suit against the EPA in 2003 after the agency declined to set auto emissions standards for new vehicles. Massachusetts and its supporters cite the Clean Air Act's "plain language," which says the agency must set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from vehicles that might even be anticipated to threaten public health or welfare.

Bush administration lawyers countered that Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. These lawyers also cited the scientific uncertainties behind global warming and its resultant effects.

The case is the court's first venture into the argument over global warming, and its ruling could have significant effects. Namely, if the justices determine that the EPA is not responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, it is likely to require congressional intervention to initiate government action. Conversely, if the justices decide that states don't have standing to sue, that would undercut other pending suits seeking to regulate factory emissions and generally make it more difficult for claims to go forward.