To Emit is Human; to Regulate, Divine: Statutory Interpretation of the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)

Authors

Kathryn Hurie

Abstract

Whether global warming is scientific fact or mere conjecture, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is the quintessential case regarding the future of air pollution regulation. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency must make a ruling as to whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases constitute air pollutants. If so, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate emissions of such gases from new motor vehicles. If not, the EPA can avoid regulation of such emissions. 
Regardless of its findings, the EPA can no longer refuse to make a determination. This Casenote argues carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions constitute air pollutants under the CAA’s definition, while deference should be given to the EPA finding that methane and hydrofluorocarbons do not constitute pollutants. By exploring the text of the CAA, the statutory interpretation arguments of the Court and dissenters, and the impact of each outcome, it is possible to determine the appropriateness of the Court’s holding, as well as whether this decision puts the federal government on a path toward regulating greenhouse gases.

Recommended Citation

Kathryn Hurie, To Emit is Human; to Regulate, Divine: Statutory Interpretation of the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), 33 S. Ill. U. L.J. 527 (2009).
Available at: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol33/iss3/7