• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

October 24, 2006
Legal Briefs

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

by Mark Moller

PRINT PAGE

CITE THIS

  Sans Serif

  Serif

In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected a petition filed by a number of states, cities, and environmental groups, which asked the EPA to regulate vehicular emissions of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court must decide whether the EPA properly denied this petition. Cato’s amicus brief, authored by law professor Jonathan Adler and joined by professors James L. Huffman and Andrew P. Morriss, makes two arguments on the EPA’s behalf: First, it argues that the states’ and environmental groups’ claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. Second, the brief demonstrates that, even if the Court were to adopt the plaintiffs’ creative standing theories, the Clean Air Act simply doesn’t give the EPA any authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Full text

© 2010 The Cato Institute
Please send comments to webmaster