| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Global temperatures rise, and MA (et al.) claim that they are harmed. They want the EPA to rule on carbon dioxide emissions from new cars, asserting that it's their duty under the Clean Air Act. |
| Posture: | Dismissed at circuit court, petition for review denied on appeal (panel was divided) denied for lack of standing, then appeal. |
| Issue: | Does at least one petitioner have standing to petition the court for relief, and if so, does the EPA have the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and if so, is their reason for not ruling consistent with the statute? |
| Holding: | There is standing. Remanded for further proceedings. |
| Rule: | The Lujan rule:
|
| Reasoning: | Congress has the power to create causes of action. Lujan tells
us how to analyze standing. States aren't normal litigants: they
have given up some of their sovereign rights (i.e., the rights to
pursue some remedies on their own, like negotiating with other
polluting nations) in order to join the union.
That means that the federal courts have to protect those
rights.
These harms are well-recognized. It's obvious that C02 causes them. It's also obvious that even though granting this petition wouldn't fix the problem, it would help. QED. |
| Dicta: | There's no basis for treating states differently. And doing so seems like a concession that MA wouldn't have standing otherwise. |