The Supreme Court of the United States has, in a 5-4 decision (pdf), just ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the clean air act was, "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
The decision does not require the EPA to begin regulating greenhouse gasses, but it does send the case back for further considerations, and it does tell the EPA that none of the justifications that it attempted to use to avoid regulating CO2 is a legitimate basis for refusal. The ruling clearly has massive implications in any number of areas, and I'm sure that more Sciencebloggers will be weighing in as the day goes on.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A few hours ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from auto emissions. (For background on the case, see this post.)
David Stout of the New York Times summarizes:
In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act…
This could be very interesting:
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment.
The decision means the court will address…
SCOTUSblog explains:
Ruling 5-4, the Supreme Court on Monday found that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming, and must examine anew the scientific evidence of a link between those gases contained in the exhausts of new cars and…
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA. In the case, several state governments are suing the EPA for failing to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
There are many levels of legal conflict on which the justices could rule, summarized in the NYTimes coverage:…