Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 15 Oct 2013

1. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") promulgated a series of four broad- ranging and interconnected rules to control emissions of greenhouse gases. In proposing the last rule in the sequence, EPA acknowledged that it would create a result "so contrary to what Congress had in mind -and that in fact so undermines what Congress attempted to accomplish with the [statute's] requirements -that it should be avoided under the 'absurd results' doctrine." App. 1837a. EPA nonetheless finalized the rule and then, in an attempt to cure the absurdity, rewrote codified limitations in the Clean Air Act. The questions presented are:
2. Whether, once an agency has identified absurd results produced by its construction of a complex statutory scheme as a whole, the agency may deem the identified absurdity irrelevant to the construction of some individual provisions within the scheme and a justification for rewriting others.
3. Whether EPA's determination that greenhouse gases "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" and otherwise are regulable under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), was "not in accordance with law" or was "arbitrary, capricious, [and] an abuse of discretion," § 7607(d)(9)(A).
4. Whether EPA incorrectly determined that all "air pollutants" regulated by the agency under the Clean Air Act's motor vehicle emissions provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7421(a)(1), must also be regulated under the Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and Title V programs when emitted from stationary sources.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved the Chamber of Commerce and other petitioners challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. The EPA had determined that such gases posed a threat to public health and welfare, thus requiring regulation. Petitioners argued that this interpretation extended beyond what Congress intended when it enacted the legislation. They contended that regulating these emissions would impose significant economic burdens on businesses without clear legislative authorization. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the EPA overstepped its regulatory powers by including greenhouse gases in its permitting requirements for new or modified major stationary sources.