Download Chapter 4 - Constitutional Authority to Regulate Business

LET-6e Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 19: Powers and Functions of
Administrative Agencies
19.8 Case Problem with Sample Answer
A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant
increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some
scientists believe that the two trends are related, because when carbon dioxide is
released into the atmosphere, it produces a greenhouse effect, trapping solar
heat. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate “any”air pollutants “emitted into . . .the
ambient air” that in its “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution.” Calling
global warming “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” a group
of private organizations asked the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other
“greenhouse gas” emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA refused, stating,
among other things, that Congress last amended the CAA in 1990 without
authorizing new, binding auto emissions limits.The petitioners— nineteen states,
including Massachusetts, and others—asked the U.S.Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA’s denial. Did the EPA have the
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles? If
so,was its stated reason for refusing to do so consistent with that authority?
Discuss. [Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, __ U.S. __, 127
S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007)]
Sample Answer:
The United States Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases fit within the
Clean Air Act's (CAA’s) definition of “air pollutant.” Thus, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under that statute to regulate the
emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. According to the Court, the
definition, which includes “any” air pollutant, embraces all airborne compounds
“of whatever stripe.” The EPA's focus on Congress’s 1990 amendments (or their
lack) indicates nothing about the original intent behind the statute (and its
amendments before 1990). Nothing in the statute suggests that Congress meant
to curtail the agency’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants. In other
words, the agency has a pre-existing mandate to regulate “any air pollutant” that
may endanger the public welfare.
The EPA also argued that, even if it had the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases, the agency would not exercise that authority because any
regulation would conflict with other administration priorities. The Court
acknowledged that the CAA conditions EPA action on the agency’s formation
of a “judgment,” but explained that judgment must relate to whether a
pollutant “cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Thus, the EPA can avoid
issuing regulations only if the agency determines that greenhouse gases do
not contribute to climate change (or if the agency reasonably explains why it
cannot or will not determine whether they do). The EPA’s refusal to regulate
was thus “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” The
Court remanded the case for the EPA to “ground its reasons for action or
inaction in the statute.”
.