Originally passed by Congress in 1963, the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection
Agency to regulate the emission of pollutants that "endanger public health and welfare."
The act also authorized state and local governments to enforce regulations with oversight by the
EPA.
In 1999, a group of 19 private organizations petitioned the EPA asking it to regulate the
emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles.
The EPA refused.
The petitioners, along with several states that intervened in the lawsuit, including
Massachusetts (plaintiffs), brought suit against the EPA (defendant) to determine whether the
EPA had the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air
Act.
Massachusetts alleged that the EPA’s failure to regulate these emissions would ultimately
result in loss of its coastal lands due to increased global warming from the emissions.
The EPA countered that any injury that may occur would be widespread, and not a particular,
concrete injury to the petitioners, and that therefore the states, local governments, and
private organizations lacked standing to bring the case in the first place.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the petition for review, and the petitioners
appealed.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
One issue on appeal was whether the petitioners could demonstrate a sufficiently particular
and concrete injury to prove they had standing to bring this case.
On the issue of standing, the Court found in favor of the petitioners.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens explained that when multiple challengers are
involved in a case, only one of the petitioners needs to demonstrate sufficient standing in
order for the Court to review the case.
Here, the Court took special interest in Massachusetts’ status as a sovereign state, and based its
analysis on whether the state was able to demonstrate standing.
Stevens reasoned that because Massachusetts surrendered its ability to take action against
other states when it joined the Union, the federal government has a special obligation
to protect Massachusetts against harm from other states.
Stevens explained, as in a case brought by an individual plaintiff, an actual case or
controversy must be present for the plaintiff state to have proper standing.
An actual case or controversy is characterized by a truly adversarial relationship.
A plaintiff can show the existence of a truly adversarial relationship by demonstrating
that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent;
that the injury is traceable to the defendant; and that it is likely that a favorable decision
would redress that injury.
Because Massachusetts was able to show that greenhouse gas emissions would further exacerbate
the problem of global warming and ultimately cause the state to lose coastal lands, it
had fulfilled this requirement.
Additionally, the court found that the state was able to show sufficient causation between
this injury and the EPA’s failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as the lack of regulations
contributed to the problem of environmental damage from greenhouse gases.
Finally, although the impact would be small in light of the global problem of greenhouse
gas emissions, the EPA’s regulation of domestic emissions would, in fact, have an impact on
decreasing the amount of emissions in the environment and thus reducing the amount of
environmental damage to Massachusetts.
Therefore, the Court found that Massachusetts did have standing in this case.
Chief Justice Roberts dissented, taking issue with the special status the majority conferred
on Massachusetts.
He explained that in any case, the petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating a particular
and concrete injury that is clearly linked to the defendant’s actions, and that a ruling
in favor of the defendant would likely redress their injury.
It does not matter whether the petitioner is a private citizen or a sovereign state.
Chief Justice Roberts claimed that in this case, the petitioners had failed to introduce
evidence that showed any petitioner, let alone the states, would suffer a particular injury
distinct from harm suffered by anyone else.
Roberts remained unconvinced that a ruling in their favor would do anything to re-dress
their injury.
This case is significant because it emphasizes that injury is a clear requirement of standing
under Article III.
It also recognized that the states may have a lesser burden in establishing standing than
private individuals.
If you found this video helpful, you can explore all of our content by visiting us at Quimbee.com.
If you have a question or comment about this case, please post in the comments area below,
and we’ll do our best to get back to you.
If you think we did a good job with this video, please like, share, and favorite this video.
And if you think this video might be helpful to people you know, please share on social
media, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ to get this video out there.
If you haven’t done so already and you enjoy watching videos on this channel, click on
the red subscribe button just below this video, so you can get all the latest updates.