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
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.