Massachusetts v. EPA - Research Paper Example

Massachusetts v. EPA Introduction Scientists believe that the rise in global temperatures and the significant rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are critically related to one another. When carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it traps the solar energy as being the ceiling of the greenhouse and hinders the escape of reflected heat. The Massachusetts state is in danger due to the possible outcomes of global warming. Thus, Massachusetts and several other states appealed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions of the gases especially carbon dioxide, that lead to global warming from the cars (Massachusetts V. EPA, 2007). Massachusetts V. EPA – Case Summary and Analysis Believing that global warming is one of the most threatening environmental challenges of its time, the state’s government and private organizations filed a petition that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not carry out its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. Further arguments were made on the issue that EPA was supposed to regulate the greenhouse gases under the Act which stated that the Congress should regulate ‘any air pollutant’ that can ‘reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The petitioners asked the court to answer some specific questions related to the issue. They were concerned about the statutory authority that EPA holds to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases from the new motor vehicles, and if they do whether their reasons of refusing are consistent with the statute or not. EPA denied the petition and claimed that the Clean Air Act does not suggest that the Agency should regulate the emissions of the greenhouse gases. EPA further argues that even if the Clean Air Act did authorize these gases to be regulated by the Agency, they will wait for more research that could be done on the causes, and the significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it. The questions that came out, in this case, were many and this case was a tipping point in the history as to clarify the authorities of the EPA towards the state. The first question that came forward was that whether the EPA should decline to issue the emission standards for new motor cars based on the policy considerations which were not enumerated in the Clean Air Act. And the other question that was brought out, in this case, was the real issue under which the court had to make a decision and this was that does the Clean Air Act give the authority to the Agency to regulate carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases. The arguments made by the parties were valid and gave a tipping point to the law history. On the issue that whether carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and EPA holds the authority to regulate it was supported by the fact that the Clean Air Act had a broad term for ‘air pollutant’. This was a question about the words of the statute which was so broad that carbon dioxide should be included in it. furthermore, to prove that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, the petitioners gave scientific proof to the court stating that carbon dioxide is toxic and contributes in causing global warming, which automatically makes it an air pollutant. The EPA held the authority to regulate the emission of these air pollutants by emitting the new motor vehicles. The courts suggested that if this fact is true and the statute includes carbon dioxide then there is no further need for arguments and the courts will depend on that statute. The statute could well take care of the issue and control the outcome. However, there were further arguments made by the EPA and the petitioners on the several other facts associated with the case. On this, the petitioners argued that EPA had violated the terms of the statute as they refused to regulate the greenhouse gases and they are liable for their decisions. The court also looked into the reasons given by the EPA and considered them as either valid reasons or invalid. The EPA kept their arguments which said that the Administrator has the option to decide whether to regulate the gases or not. The EPA administrator kept his arguments in front of the court which stated that the increasing actions that are being taken to increase the fuel efficiency in the new motor vehicles are still undergoing the process, and moreover, the scientific investigation on this issue was also still on the way. Thus, the EPA administrator had decided not to take action against these greenhouse gases and the new motor vehicles for the time being and was waiting for the right time to come. Out of the many arguments that were put before the court, the parties extended the case as they expected the court to give decisions for the theories of global warming as being true or false. The court held the decision against the legal nature of the matter only, and not the scientific. This was revealed in the later proceedings that the court will not take actions or make decisions against the theories if global warming, but only for the legal matters of the proceedings. Other reasons given by the EPA administrator included the fact that is the global warming caused by the carbon dioxide which is man-made. They argued that they did not regulate the emission of carbon dioxide as it was man-made from the motor vehicles and that is not what is causing the global warming. Global warming is not caused by the man-made carbon dioxide. However, the court decided that this reason will be considered only if it stands under the Clean Air Act. The court will not decide the true or untrue nature of this discussion; it will rather look into the matter under the statute. This is the issue which prolonged the proceedings of the court and attracted the court’s attention towards it. On this argument, the petitioners put down an argument that the scientific reason was not a valid reason for not regulating a pollutant. Not because it was untrue, but just because it was not a valid reason. The court’s opinion was in favor of the petitioners which suggested that the Clean Air Act does include the greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. The reasons presented by the EPA administration were not valid enough and they needed to come up with better reasons to try to avoid the emissions. The Act clearly stated that the agency was responsible for the emission of the gases caused by the motor vehicles or new motor engines. These air pollutants produce were, according to the act, subjected to cause danger to public health or welfare and thus should be emitted. The court suggested that the majority of the judiciary thought that the petitioners had a standing. But it was argued that the injuries that were caused to the petitioner’s land on the basis of the case were brought in the court was not related to the claims they were making. It was argued that the injury was ‘Massachusetts' loss of land due to the rising sea level'. This injury lacked scientific proof, and even if it was proven that they lost land because of global warming, the court argued that this has no connection with the EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gases and enforcing motor vehicle emissions. The court’s decision to Massachusetts was a very right decision and it gave a new face to the judicial review. However, it played an important role in the administrative law as it gave the conclusion to a complex issue which stated that private parties could seek judicial review for the refusal of the Agency to regulate gases. This decision did not seek much of public attention and scholarly review, yet it has been considered as a very technical question for the administrative law. The case qualified for judicial review as the majority of judiciary believed that the state had a standing and their petition was considerable. However, the court’s decision was an important one in the history of administrative law as it was one of the only few times when the court had to decide whether they could take action about the administrative decisions of the agency or not. Massachusetts was a precedent as the cases did not view any other previous precedents for the conclusion of the case. The court only considered the precedent of Heckler v Chaney in which the court had decided that the agency decisions not to enforce the law were considered as unreviewable. This case included the injury, the causation of events and the legal violation of the statutory act, the Clean Air Act, and this is why the case was qualified for judicial review. There were continuous arguments that the previous precedents should be reviewed as they give away to the current case. The previous precedents created a structure of the judicial review in the cases of administrative decisions of agencies. Under the current US Supreme Court doctrine, some administrative decisions are considered to be unreviewable while some can still be reviewed. However, despite the precedent, there is still confusion on the field that whether the administrative decisions need judicial review or not. This case makes clear that there are some sorts of decision making that cannot be undergone judicial review, while there are some decisions that can still go under judicial review. However, there are certain rules that were formed after the court's decision in this case under which the judicial review of the agencies’ refusals can be countered. The court’s decision was in favor of Massachusetts by a 5-4 vote. The opinion suggested by the justice was that the stake of the state to protect their sovereign interests’ as a state was a valid standing to sue the EPA for the damage that could be caused to the environment and the health of the people due to global warming. Moreover, the court also rejected the argument placed by the EPA administrator that the Clean Air Act did not mention the regulation of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide. The Act's definition was written in comprehensive and broad language so that it would not become obsolete. Finally, it was decided that the EPA’s decision was unjustified and the petitioners had a standing for the benefit of their state. The court further suggested that if the EPA wishes the inaction of the carbon dioxide emission in future, it is supposed to base their decision as per the Act on the consideration whether the greenhouse gas emissions would contribute in the climate change or not. There was also an argument made by the judiciary that the Clean Air Act was subjected to lower atmosphere pollutants and not global climate change. In my opinion, the court’s majority decision was in favor of Massachusetts and it was a right decision by the judiciary. This case was a turning point and it helped greatly in the creation of new precedents and rules for administrative laws. It gave a clear picture to the agencies about the decisions of refusal that could result in a judicial review and the decisions that are unreviewable. There are certain tests that can be taken in order to decide whether the court can intervene in the agency decisions or not. Firstly, the courts would decide a balance between the allocation of resources and the instructions to agencies. This will be an important factor under which the court will decide that whether the agency should be provided with the decision making or not, and whether action should be taken or not. The second test which has to be taken is the court's requirements to make some decisions by the agencies unreviewable, whether the allocation of resources is possible or not. The third situation is where the allocation of resources and the statutory authority are both undergone, in such a case the public opinion will matter. The public choice considerations decide whether the decisions will need a judicial review or not. The court will act upon if the government interests and duties are represented. Over the years, the regulatory decisions about nature and the environmental scope have moved from the Congress to the agencies. Moreover, the important decisions that have to be taken about how the federal government will regulate in fields such as environmental law are now left to the agencies deciding which actions to take. When those agencies take the decisions of taking action or not, the courts will rather not be involved. If they take the decision not to act and the state’s interests are endangered, the courts can intervene and their decision can be given the judicial review. It was suggested that the six greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangered public health and welfare both and were supposed to be regulated by the EPA as they held the responsibility for the environmental protection. References Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) Read More