1 / 0

Case Study: Massachusetts vs. EPA Case Decided: April 2007

Case Study: Massachusetts vs. EPA Case Decided: April 2007. By: Michael Gaizick and Jonathan McGran. Parties Involved: . Massachusetts petitioners. EPA. This included the state of Massachusetts and many other states across the US

egan
Download Presentation

Case Study: Massachusetts vs. EPA Case Decided: April 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case Study: Massachusetts vs. EPACase Decided: April 2007

    By: Michael Gaizick and Jonathan McGran
  2. Parties Involved: Massachusetts petitioners EPA This included the state of Massachusetts and many other states across the US Also includes many agencies and environmental interest groups such as the “Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace” This includes the EPA, several other states such as Alaska, South Dakota, Utah, etc. Also involves other agencies such as the Truck Manufacturers Association and the National Automobiles Dealers Association. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency
  3. Background: This is a relatively unusual case. The petitioners from Massachusetts want the EPA to do something about air pollution. They want more regulation. More regulation is something the EPA is not ready for. Massachusetts claims that the EPA needs to regulate greenhouse gasses in order to stop climate change. This means cars, trucks, business and factories are all subject to this regulation. V.S
  4. Main Conflict Plaintiff Defendant The main conflict in this case is that Massachusetts claims that the EPA did not carry out their responsibilities of the “Clean Air Act” by failing to regulate greenhouse gasses that cause global warming. Massachusetts is now suing with other states and agencies to mandate the EPA to take action. The reason for this is that the greenhouse gasses are linked to climate change and their state can be in danger of rising sea levels. The EPA’s defense is that the Clean Air Act does not force them to take action on greenhouse gasses. Also, at the time, there was no big risk of global warming. It was a small problem to be dealt with later. Lastly, the small regulations of carbon admission would conflict with the president’s policies of big regulation and foreign cooperation.
  5. The Supreme Court Ruled: On a slim 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts for a few reasons: Massachusetts had the right to sue the EPA for their failure to make laws. The Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollution was very broad and carbon dioxide emissions fit the requirements Climate change is recognized as a threat and the EPA has failed to deny it. Inaction on pollutant regulation can contribute harm to Massachusetts
  6. Constitutional InterpretationArticle 2, Section 3, Clause 1 The last line in this clause states: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This refers to the president and the Executive Branch to enforce the law. The EPA has the responsibility to enforce the law by abiding the standards of the “Clean Air Act” and regulate air pollutants.
  7. Precedent: A Guide for the Future This case establishes the precedent of environmental regulations for decades to come. Government agencies must enforce all laws (Clean Air Act) as they are written and in the time frame specified. Government cannot wait until it is convenient to enforce the law. The court ruled that if the EPA is not going to regulate carbon admissions, it must be based on climate data, rather than presidential policy. When it comes to pollutants, the EPA has the ability and the responsibility to regulate all that can be a harm to the environment and the country.
  8. Case Conclusion The main job of the Judicial Branch is to interpret the Constitution. They can take the words of the Founding Fathers and apply them into a situation that Washington and Jefferson would never have imagined. Advancements in energy technology and the crisis of global warming has the power to test any government. Our Constitution provides a guide to the right decision without explicitly stating it. In the Constitution, it states the Executive Branch has to enforce the laws. The Clean Air Act is the law and therefore, the EPA has to enforce it. The Constitution will never become an irrelevant document even after thousands of years. This is because the Constitution was not written specifically for every issue. It was a list of fundamental ideas and principles that can be interpreted and applied in any situation.
  9. URLs http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120 Images courtesy of: Google Images
More Related