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.
More like this
James Surowiecki's latest New Yorker piece tackles the problem of weakened federal agencies failing to get tough on companies that need it.
An interesting article from Timmy, who makes clearly a point I've glimpsed muddily recently.
In a week that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) rallied his Members with a plan to repeal "job-destroying regulations," the Center for Progressive Re
The (valid) concern over the eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London has been misappropriated for some truly awful purposes.