The Supreme Court gave the environmental movement a very narrow victory yesterday in Massachusetts v. EPA, which dealt specifically with whether a governmental agency (the EPA) was negligent in not carrying out its mission in the manner in which some felt it was required to. In brief, several states and cities brought suit against the EPA to force it to regulate carbon dioxide (specifcally tailpipe emissions) as a pollutant, or to not interfere with the ability of the states to regulate them. The EPA claimed that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide.
The case is as much about the relationship between the bureaucracy and Congress, and the states and the federal government, as it is about the environment. Can the discretion a bureaucratic agency has in rulemaking negate the intent of the statute the agancy was required to implement? How do we define the jurisdiction of the agency?
The vote also reinforces the notion that the current Supreme Court is composed of two factions of four (the liberals and the conservatives), with the deciding vote resting with Anthony Kennedy.
Since my 2302's are covering the courts at the moment, and this case illustrates many of the points I'm trying to make, we ought to go over parts of it. I'll need more time to digest the case, but here are three contentious parst of the case:
Standing: A key dispute between the majority and the dissenters concerns whether this is a case that the courts have jurisdiction. The dissenters argue that there is no injury suffered by the inaction of the EPA, so the plaintiff's lack standing to sue. The majority points out that standing does not only refer to actual injury, but to imminent injury as well. The failure to act, leads to injuries suffered, or to be suffered, by the state.
The Court's jurisdiction: For the dissenters, the issue was less the power of government to go forward, than the effort of the states to force the federal government to go forward, by going to the courts, when it did not want to. The majority held that this was a legitimate concern.
Strict and loose interpretations of statutory and constitutional language: The statutory language at issue is the defintion of "pollutant." Carbon dioxide isn't normally a pollutant, plants live on it after all, so a narrow definition would not allow for governmental regulation, but its interaction with the atmosphere causes conditions that might require governmental action. If that interaction can be defined loosely as pollution, then government is permitted to go forward.
Given that this was a 5-4 decision, it is unwise to read too much into it. If Kennedy had decided to go the other way, the EPA would have won.
For background, click here for the wikipedia entry on the case.
