In this 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case, Massachusetts and other states sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled that the EPA had the authority and responsibility to regulate such emissions, and that states like Massachusetts had legal standing to challenge the EPA's inaction due to real harms caused by rising sea levels and climate change. This case established that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can be regulated as air pollutants under federal law.

Notes

Supreme Court syllabus for Massachusetts v. EPA case regarding EPA’s denial of petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled that petitioners have standing to challenge EPA’s denial and that the agency must consider regulating greenhouse gases.

Sidebar On/Off

As the source for federal transportation grants, the Puget Sound Regional Council was charged with developing a system to meet the growing need for commercial aviation. When the search for a second airport failed, they authorized the Port of Seattle to build the Third Runway, with a mandate to develop a noise abatement and mitigation program. In their effort to stop the Third Runway, the ACC argued over every detail of the Port's efforts--including property buyouts and sound insulation. The dispute was meant to be settled by a three member Expert Arbitration Panel. This is their final report. It finds 2-1, that the Port's program was insufficient in several respects. Despite that, funding for the Third Runway was approved by the PSRC, and the 'Port Package' program, proceeded largely unchanged. Expert Arbitration Panel's final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port's noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope.

continue...

V V

Notes

Message