« Law - "Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Next Week in States' Challenge to 'Preemption' of Regulation" | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Could this be a coincidence? »

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Law - Another important oral argument before the Supreme Court next week

David G. Savage of the LA Times writes:

WASHINGTON — The polar icecaps are melting, summers growing hotter and hurricanes becoming more powerful, but the Bush administration has insisted it cannot regulate the gases that many believe are responsible.

On Wednesday, a coalition of 12 states, led by California and Massachusetts, will try to persuade the Supreme Court that the nation's environmental regulators have the legal authority and responsibility to control greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming — which many scientists describe as the biggest environmental threat to the planet.

It is a rare day when state lawyers travel to Washington hoping to win new powers for the federal government. As David Bookbinder, a Sierra Club lawyer, noted, "How often do federal authorities insist they lack the authority to do something?"

The administration's approach to another global issue — terrorism — has been to assert broad powers to act at home and abroad. On the environmental front, the administration says, it is studying the problem and "seeking a cooperative international approach to addressing global climate change," Solicitor General Paul Clement wrote in his brief to the court.

Putting new limits on motor vehicles and power plants is out of the question, at least for now, he added, saying, "the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority under the Clean Air Act … to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."

The case before the Supreme Court tests that conclusion. It begins with a simple question: Is carbon dioxide an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act? The answer may determine not only whether federal regulators must tackle global warming, but also whether California and other states may do so on their own.

Four years ago, California adopted stricter rules. The state Legislature declared its intent to "achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions" from motor vehicles. These standards for new cars and trucks are to take effect in 2009. * * *

Besides Massachusetts and California, the states challenging the Bush administration's policy are Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

They were joined by the cities of New York, Washington and Baltimore, and several environmental groups.

The case, Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., will be argued on Wednesday, Nov. 29th.

Also on Wednesday, another administrative law case, Watters, Linda (Commissioner, Michigan Office of Insurance & Financial Services) v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., mentioned in the ILB entry earlier today, will be argued.

Note: The case links provided here lead to the Medill School of Journalist site with its resources. The ABA provides the briefs in both of these cases here - scroll down to the end of the month.

[More] How Appealing points to this freely available WSJ story today, titled "Environment: An Inconvenient Case for Supreme Court."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 25, 2006 03:00 PM
Posted to Administrative Law | Environment | General Law Related