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.
Subscribe to 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.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
'Time-honored political tactic: Throw your wife under the bus'Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages
-
Best non-alcoholic spirits for summer cocktailsThe Week Recommends As hard liquor takes a backseat for many, the ingredients for the perfect mocktail are dryly delicious
-
Will Biden's tariffs hinder China's EV dominance?Today's Big Question Climate change goals and American jobs in tension
