The Supreme Court - Standing and the Impact of Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency - Case Study Example

The Supreme Court, Standing and the Impact of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007) Some argue thatthe requirement that plaintiffs have standing is one of the self-restraints on the power of the federal courts. Further, many believe that Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007) had a significant impact on the standards for standing before the Supreme Court. This brief discussion will consider three related questions: 1. Did the Supreme Courts decision in the Massachusetts case dilute the standards for standing? If so, why? If not, why not? 2. Will the Supreme Courts new approach to standing increase or decrease the role of the courts in U.S. public life and why? 3. Finally, should the government involve itself in activities impacting the environment and regulate the conduct of business in order to minimize their impact on the environment? In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued “that because greenhouse gas emissions inflict widespread harm, the doctrine of standing presents an insuperable jurisdictional obstacle.” The EPA argued that the causes and negative effects of greenhouse gases could not be tied to one party that could then claim standing before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Citing Baker v. Carr (1962) the Court asserted that "the gist of the question of standing" is whether petitioners have "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination." (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007) The court held that it might be possible for Massachusetts to demonstrate a personal stake in the damages related to greenhouse gases and, therefore, agreed to hear Massachusetts arguments for standing before the court. On the basis of the arguments made by the state the court concluded that the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could demonstrate concrete adverseness: Namely, that the area (or property) of the Commonwealth would be diminished by rising sea levels, a direct consequence of global warming which automobile emissions make a direct contribution to. This conclusion established that the government of Massachusetts, representing the entire population of the state, had demonstrated, “injury, causality and redressability” and, therefore, was entitled to standing in this appeal before the Supreme Court. (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007). In summary the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as representative of its citizens was granted standing because its citizens stood to lose property, the land of the Commonwealth, as a result of rising sea levels. Importantly, standing was not based on the establishment of any connection between global warming and rising sea levels or global warming and automobile emissions. Those issues remained to be decided by the Court once Massachusetts was granted standing. However, it was historic and did increase the potential for appeals in another sense. The court ruled that states are entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis in appeals to the Supreme Court. This opens a new avenue of appeal for states according to Dawn L. Kurz. (Kurz, 2008) In “A Theoretical Justification for Special Solicitude: States and the Administrative State”, Mathew S. Melamed traces special solicitude to historic federalist concerns about states rights. (2009) He argues that the U.S. Constitution grants states quasi-sovereign rights to protect themselves and their citizens from unjust actions on the part of the federal government. Further, he asserts that the federal government violating its own laws and legislation (in this case the Clean Air Act) constitutes an unjust action. In conclusion Melamed offers a concise summary of the basis and limits of special solicitude: “Thus, where Congress has established federal agencies in order to regulate a given field, states have a quasi-sovereign basis for special solicitude in the standing analysis when they seek judicial intervention for the purpose of directing Executive Branch compliance with federal law.” (Melamed, 2009) Simply put, states can require that the Federal government follow its own laws and they can appeal to the Supreme Court to see that this is done. Moreover, identifying this issue as an historic concern of the federalists classifies it as not a new argument for standing. Despite the 5 – 4 ruling supporting Massachusetts the four justices that voted against the ruling based their dissent from the majority opinion on the question of granting standing. Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the minority opinion and was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. These justices opined that standing should not have been granted to the Commonwealth fo Massachusetts. Quoting earlier Supreme Court decisions Justice Roberts wrote, the decision “has caused us to transgress the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society,” and t hat the Supreme Courts “standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts.” (Quoted in Greenhouse, 2007) their opinion was that the Supreme Court had no role in legislating disputes between the federal government and the states, that that was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress and the President. However the Supreme Court rejected this opinion and ruled that states could have standing when they were protecting their quasi-sovereign rights. The question then arises as to whether or not this ruling diluted the standards for standing on any other grounds. The answer to that question, in the first part, is conclusively no. The decision of the court was based on case law going back as far as 1907. It was based on the historic principle that appellants in cases of this nature had to demonstrate injury, causality, and redressability this in no way changed the conditions for standing. Furthermore, as noted above, the ruling was based on concerns about states rights that have been an element of the debate about federalism for two centuries. In this sense also the decision did not radically change the rules on standing before the Supreme Court. On another level it increases the likelihood of appeals to the Supreme Court in environmental cases. However, this is not because the standards for standing were diluted but rather because it represented the historic conclusion that global warming is an injury, that its cause was automobile emissions and that it was an injury that could be redressed. This was an historic first, and considering the facts of the case, means that any state with a coastline could claim that global warming and by extension the automobile industry represents a damage to them. Therefore, both by granting states special solicitude and in recognizing global warming as an injury that is redressable before the courts this decision does increase the role of the courts in U.S. public life. There is a great deal of public discussion about the United States becoming an increasingly litigious society. Examples of this include tobacco companies being sued by smokers suffering from cancer and lung disease and fast food restaurants being sued by persons suffering from obesity or other medical problems that might be traced to consumption of their high calorie and high fat meals. I believe that cases of this nature are unnecessary. In both examples the complainants chose to engage in the potentially risky behavior This is not the same situation as the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. Individuals do not choose to breathe or not breathe, it is a question of living necessity. Also, individuals cannot chose what air they breathe. We all breathe the same air. Similarly, individuals do not chose to live on the globe nor can they chose which planet they chose to live on. There is no choice in this environmental matters they are inherent in human existence. This is not the case with smoking and eating Big Macs. Therefore, in the case of automobile emissions and other global environmental impacts the individual is not exercising free choice and cannot be held responsible for breathing or living on the planet earth. Therefore, in the context of the environment, I believe that this is a positive development. There can be no denying that standard operating procedures in many businesses are driven by the profit imperative rather than larger social concerns. The automobile industry and global warming is only one example of this. Coal mining in Appalachia has frequently placed miners at risk in the pursuit of profit with the results being unsafe working conditions and environmental degradation that has endangered residents of the area whether they are involved in the industry or not. The most spectacular and horrifying illustration of this this year is the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Wrangling over responsibility between BP, Transocean and Halliburton will continue for decades in the courts. However, it is clear that the pursuit of profit led these companies to cut corners on safety measures, discount warnings, and ultimately led to the disaster. (Cassellman, Gold and Gonzales, 2010) The pursuit of profit was the direct cause of the environmental disaster along the Gulf Coast of the United States. There are other similar examples involving the pursuit of profit and environmental damages. The practice of clear cutting is cost-effective for logging companies but has devastating environmental impacts. Similar assrtions can be made with mining and the mining industry. For example, the methods used to mine coal have negative health impacts on the miners themselves and on the surrounding environment. In the case of automobile manufacturing, business is often driven by the desire for profits even at the expense of the environment. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that the courts at all levels have a role to play in controlling and minimizing environmental impacts and degradation from industry and resource extraction. The consequences of environmental degradation have profound and nationwide (indeed global) consequences. For the government to increase its involvement in the prevention of environmental degradation is a positive development. Personally, I would go so far as to assert that it is a responsibility of the federal government to protect the health and well-being of its citizens from the deleterious effects of pollution, global warming and other environmental impacts. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) v. National Security Agency (NSA), 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007) is another example of the courts increasing their involvement in public life closely related to Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007). In the former case the ACLU challenged new regulations granting the NSA the right to engage in previously illegal surveillance activities. Citizens and organizations must have the right to challenge the government, government agencies such as the EPA and business if they feel that their rights are being infringed. ACLU v. NSA is another example of the Courts being called upon to rule on the actions of the federal government. Furthermore, as in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA I believe it represents a positive development. The United States government is composed of three separate branches so that they can provide checks and balances to one another. The federal courts have the right, indeed the responsibility to play their role in this tripartite form of government. Therefore, they have the right and the responsibility to rule on the behavior of the federal government if other parties believe that the action of the federal government are in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. References American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007). Available at: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=8921361595483041516&q=American+Civil+Liberties+Union+v.+National+Security+Agency,+493+F.3d+644+%286th+Cir.+2007%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2002. Cassellman, Ben, Russell Gold and Angel Gonzalez, (April 22, 2010) “Blast Jolts Oil World” Wall Street Journal. Web. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704133804575197613591134990-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html. Greenhouse, Linda. (April 3, 2007). “Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases”. The New York Times. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html?ex=1333339200&en=e0d0a1497263d879&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Kurz, Dawn M. (2008). The Return of the Lorax: Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), Can States "Speak" for the Trees? Nebraska Law Review. 87. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol87/iss4/6. Little, Nicolette. (2007). “NO MORE IMPORTS: SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. GENENDO IS AN EXPENSIVE PILL FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS TO SWALLOW”. 7th Circuit Review. 3 (1), 209-243. Available at: http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v3-1/little.pdf. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007). Available at: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=16923241216495494762&q=Massachusetts+v.+Environmental+Protection+Agency,+549+U.S.+497,+127+S.Ct.+1438+%282007%29.+&hl=en&as_sdt=2002. Melamed, Matthew S. 2009. "A Theoretical Justification for Special Solicitude: States and the Administrative State" ExpressO Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matthew_melamed/2. United States v. Genendo Pharmaceutical, N.V., 485 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2007). Available at: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=12319583514204231650&q=United+States+v.+Genendo+Pharmaceutical,+N.V.,+485+F.3d+958+%287th+Cir.+2007%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2002. Read More