The U.S. Supreme Court case of Massachusetts vs EPA has been described as one of the most important environmental cases to ever come before the United States Supreme Court dealing with global warming. The case involves the thirty six year old federal Clean Air Act. The act provides for regulation of "any air pollutants" from vehicles "that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health of welfare" and defines "welfare" as including effects on climate and weather. A group of twelve states and several environmental groups led by the state of Massachusetts sued the EPA to require them to enforce the law.

The Bush Administration Environmental Protection Agency, at the direction of the Bush Administration, has refused to enforce this provision the Clean Air Act because they claim the problem of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases is not within it’s responsibility and therefore it was powerless to do anything. In argument to the Court, the Deputy Solicitor General, representing the Bush Administration, fold the Court that requiring EPA enforcement would have a "significant economic impact on the United States." This is the same excuse the White House has used in rebuffing demands that it require the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act. The lawyer also repeated the Bush administration’s scientifically discredited claim there is "substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change." I’m surprised his nose didn’t start to grow on the spot like Pinocchio’s in light of the overwhelming scientific agreement to the contrary.

Rising temperatures are linked to numerous environmental problems including glacier thaw, reduced water supply and loss of costal land. But, the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to recognize the mounting evidence and sticks to the story that there is "controversy" about the cause of global warming and the extent of the problem. In addition, the lawyer told the court that the state’s lacked standing to sue to require enforcement under the Act because they have not shown they will be harmed. The Bush lawyer made an incredible argument that the EPA’s refusal to carry out the mandate of the Act didn’t cause any harm since such emissions "…involve only a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions."

More then twenty "friends of the court briefs" were filed. Oil, gas and industry supported their friends, the Bush administration. Michigan, where the auto giants are located, and eight other states backed the Bush administration as well. California and ten other states backed Massachusetts in its lawsuit to force the EPA to enforce the law.

On Monday, the Court, in a five to four decision, ruled against the Bush administration and the EPA. It held that the Clean Air Act does give the EPA the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Justice John Paul Stevens said, in the majority opinion, that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Act. The court also held that states have the right to sue the EPA to require enforcement and directed the EPA to "re-evaluate" the reasons it gives for not taking action. The court criticized the agency for the reasons it offers as an excuse not to do anything. It characterized their excuses as as "laundry list" and not rational set of reasons. The court said about the EPA’s list of excuses:

"The EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change."

As might be predicted the conservatives, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissented. Scalia, in his usual flippant manner sarcastically had asked the lawyer representing Massachusetts during arguments "When is the predicted cataclysm?" Roberts claimed the states didn’t have standing to challenge the EPA as it was up to Congress to redress grievances and insisted his position didn’t involve any judgment on "whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem."

The decision is a clear victory for environmentalists and a rebuke of the Bush administration and its EPA for being the tool of the auto and oil industry instead of following the law.