Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 15 Oct 2013

1. The Clean Air Act compels every stationary source that emits "one hundred tons per year or more of any air pollutant" to obtain an operating permit, and also requires a permit to build or modify any stationary source that emits "two hundred and fifty tons per year or more of any air pollutant." See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7475(a)(1), 7479(1), 7602(j), 7661a(a). After Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), held that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Act, EPA sought to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from stationary sources. EPA realized that to do so would be absurd if it adhered to the text of the Act, given that millions of buildings (including churches and schools) emit more than 100 or 250 tons per year of carbon dioxide. To enable its desired regulatory expansion, EPA promulgated a "Tailoring Rule" that discards the Act's numerical thresholds and creates a novel permitting regime exclusively for greenhouse gases. The questions presented are:
2. (a) Whether EPA's Tailoring Rule violates the Act by replacing Congress's unambiguous numerical permitting thresholds with criteria of EPA's own choosing. (b) Whether the D.C. Circuit improperly ducked this question on Article III standing grounds.
3. Whether Congress authorized EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from stationary sources, given that the Act imposes permitting thresholds that are absurdly low if applied to carbon dioxide.
4. Whether Massachusetts v. EPA should be reconsidered or overruled in light of the absurd permitting burdens that follow from treating carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Act.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge by Southeastern Legal Foundation and other petitioners against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its regulatory authority. The primary issue was whether the EPA had overstepped its bounds under the Clean Air Act when it implemented certain regulations aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories. Petitioners argued that these regulations imposed undue economic burdens on businesses and exceeded the statutory limits set by Congress for environmental regulation. The Supreme Court's decision focused on interpreting specific provisions of the Clean Air Act to determine if they granted sufficient authority to the EPA for regulating greenhouse gases in this manner.