Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:



Docket No.: 12-1146
Certiorari Granted: 10/15/2013
Argued: February 24, 2014
Decided: June 23, 2014
Consolidated with: Docket No. 12-1248, 12-1254, 12-1268, 12-1269, 12-1272


Article I, Clean Air Act, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources, patent, separation of powers

PartyNames: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Petitioner: Utility Air Regulatory Group
Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Citation: 684 F.3d 102
Supreme Court Docket

Utility Air Regulatory Group
Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

After this Court decided Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that its promulgation of motor vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards under Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), compelled regulation of carbon dioxide and other GHGs under the CAA's Title I prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V stationary-source permitting programs. Even though EPA determined that including GHGs in these programs would vastly expand the programs contrary to Congress's intent, EPA adopted rules adding GHGs to the pollutants covered. The panel below held the CAA and Massachusetts compelled inclusion of GHGs and, based on that holding, dismissed all petitions to review the GHG permitting program rules on standing grounds.

Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases. 10/15/2013

Question Presented:

1. Whether Massachusetts compelled EPA to in-clude GHGs in the PSD and Title V programs when inclusion of GHGs would (i) transform the size and scope of these programs into something that EPA found would be "unrecognizable to ... Congress," Petition Appendix 345a, 380a, and (ii) expand the PSD program to cover a substance that does not deteriorate the quality of the air that people breathe. 2. Whether dismissal of the petitions to review EPA's GHG permit-program rules was inconsistent with this Court's standing jurisprudence where the panel premised its holding that standing was absent on its merits holding that GHGs are regulated "pursuant to automatic operation of the CAA." Id. at 96a.


February 24, 2014

Majority: Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurring: Breyer,Ginsburg,Sotomayor,Kagan,Alito,Thomas
Dissenting: Breyer,Ginsburg,Sotomayor,Kagan,Alito,Thomas
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)