Will the Supreme Court Review EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations?

Powerful dissenting opinions can sometimes persuade a higher court to review a lower court’s ruling. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court decision empowering the EPA to act as a super legislature and ‘enact’ climate policy, is a prime example.

In 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Bush administration EPA properly exercised its discretion when it denied a petition by eco-litigation groups to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles under §202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). I remember feeling relieved but disappointed. The 2-1 majority ducked the central issue, namely, whether the CAA authorizes the EPA to regulate GHGs as climate change agents. In contrast, Judge David Tatel’s dissent made a strong argument that the EPA does have the power to regulate GHGs and, consequently, has a duty to determine whether GHG emissions endanger public health or welfare. Tatel’s opinion was a key factor persuading the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of petitioners, setting the stage for the EPA’songoing, ever-expanding regulation of GHG emissions from both mobile and stationary sources.

The EPA’s greenhouse regulatory surge, however, is not yet ‘settled law.’ Recent strong dissenting opinions by two D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges may persuade the Supreme Court to review one or more of the agency’s GHG rules — or even reassess its ruling in Mass. v. EPA.

Read more at GlobalWarming.org. By Marlo Lewis.


  1. There is nothing worse for mankind and the world than the corruption that breeds and spreads within the ranks of those with absolute power.

  2. Lloyd Smith says:

    I can remember in the 1940's when I rode with my father to the new york area that the air polution was horrible. The air was so poluted and it smelled very bad. I now live in the south and when I travel in that area there is no polution. It is very apparent that we have done a tremendous job in our cities of cleaning up our air. Plain old common sense tells me that we are not causing earth warming and that it is just changes in our environment. They had the ice age long before we had cars. Also our cars have been improved so much and you almost never see a car or truck belching smoke. The EPA is beating a dead horse. Thank You, Lloyd

  3. There is NO NEED for a "climate policy," because there is NO WAY that man can influence climate.

  4. Impressed to look the Supreme Court Review EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations in this website which is so effective to know. After long since I have got this information indeed and hope that it would come to help us more. Thank you for posting this valuable information in this website you have done a good job at all.

Speak Your Mind

Connect with Facebook