Case Summary
Issue:
In April 2013, nine separate petitions for writ of certiorari were filed; in October 2013, the Supreme Court granted six petitions, but limited the question presented to “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.”
Plaintiffs:
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al.
Defendant:
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Amicus Curiae:
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
On December 15, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule (the Endangerment Rule) in which it found that greenhouse gases (GHG), which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflurocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, endanger the health and welfare of the American people under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA’s finding and rule, if permitted to stand, allow the EPA to use the CAA to regulate GHG. The EPA’s new finding came following a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EPA has authority to regulate GHG emissions using the CAA.
On December 23, 2009, and subsequently, several entities petitioned for review changing the Endangerment Rule. A host of state governments and environmental groups intervened as respondents, and numerous state governments, trade associations, and chambers of commerce intervened as petitioners. On February 17-18, 2010, the cases were consolidated. On February 22, 2010, MSLF sought to participate in the matter as an amicus curiae; that motion was granted on February 23, 2010.
Meanwhile, various entities petitioned the EPA to reconsider its Endangerment Rule given new evidence as to the validity of its findings. On August 13, 2010, the EPA denied those petitions. New petitions for review of the EPA’s latest decision were filed and consolidated with the other petitions. On March 22, 2011, the court set the briefing schedule for the case. On May 20, 2011, petitioners and their supporting intervenors filed their opening briefs. On May 20, 2011, MSLF and others filed a supporting amici curiae brief. On August 18, 2011, the EPA and its supporting intervenors filed their response briefs; amicus curiae briefs in support of the EPA were filed on August 25, 2011. On February 28 and 29, 2012, oral arguments were conducted by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
