An unlikely alliance of federalists, business leaders and environmentalists

On Monday, environmentalists, governors, and business leaders all won a victory in the Supreme Court. In a split ruling (5-4), the Court answered three questions: (1) states have the right to sue the EPA if it is not upholding federal law, (2) the Clean Air Act gives the EPA “authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases,” and (3) the EPA needs to “re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions.

 

How now? A bizarre case, indeed.

 

First, business and industry leaders siding with environmentalists and governors? It makes sense, if you read the fine print. The businesses/industries in question are quite large and span across many states. Thus, it is much less costly for them to follow a single (i.e., federal) standard rather than having to adhere to a patchwork of individual states’ regulations.

 

Second, the ability of states to sue—individually, let alone collectively—the federal government should not have been a question, according to the Constitution if I understand it correctly. This right is as old as the debate over federalism.

 

Third, I find the Court’s stated opinion odd regarding whether the EPA has the “discretion” to enforce federal law. That is, either this law falls under their portfolio of responsibilities or it falls under some other entity. If not them, then somebody needs to do it, no? Otherwise, what the hell is the point of the law?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/scotus.dukeenergy.ap/index.html

 

-W.