Washington, D.C
The Supreme Court this week struck down a key component of the Bush administration’s laissez-faire approach to global warming, ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate automobile emissions or provide legal and scientific justifications for not doing so. In a 5–4 decision, the court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate the emissions, contrary to the EPA’s claims. The suit, brought by Massachusetts and other states, argued that citizens were being irreparably harmed by the EPA’s refusal to regulate automotive gases that trap the sun’s heat and contribute to global warming. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the EPA’s “laundry list” of reasons for not enforcing clean-air regulations was not sufficient. Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting, said the court was improperly interfering in a dispute between the White House and Congress.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
Home Depots are the new epicenters of ICE raidsIn the Spotlight The chain has not provided many comments on the ongoing raids
-
Why does Trump keep interfering in the NYC mayoral race?Today's Big Question The president has seemingly taken an outsized interest in his hometown elections, but are his efforts to block Zohran Mamdani about political expediency or something deeper?
-
The pros and cons of banning cellphones in classroomsPros and cons The devices could be major distractions
