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.
-
The elite falcon trade in the Middle EastUnder the Radar Popularity of the birds of prey has been ‘soaring’ despite doubts over the legality of sourcing and concerns for animal welfare
-
A running list of the international figures Donald Trump has pardonedin depth The president has grown bolder in flexing executive clemency powers beyond national borders
-
Mixed nuts: RFK Jr.’s new nutrition guidelines receive uneven reviewsTalking Points The guidelines emphasize red meat and full-fat dairy
