Home > Environmental Law Home > Lawsuits > Pivotal Global Warming Victory in High Court

Sierra Club Lawsuits

Pivotal Global Warming Victory in High Court

Case Updates:

April 2, 2008

Massachusetts v. EPA: One Year Later

On April 2, 2007, in a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and other petitioners by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons or in favor of extra-statutory policy preferences.

Yet despite that ruling, both EPA and President Bush have created a legacy of broken promises and willful inaction when it comes to fulfilling that judgment:

Read the Mass. v. EPA Backgrounder.
Read the January 31, 2008 letter sent to the EPA  by Sierra Club and a coalition of other groups demanding that they take action.
Read the EPA's response  to the Club's January 31 letter.
Read the Mandamus petition that Sierra Club and others filed on April 2, 2008 to compel EPA to comply with the mandate.

Latest News:

States Sue to Force EPA Ruling on Emissions
April 2, 2008, by Ian Talley, Dow Jones

Bush's 'Caution' on CO2 seen as 'foot-dragging' by critics
April 2, 2008, by Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor

Ignoring the Supreme Court 
April 2, 2008, by Editorial, The Washington Post

April 2, 2007

In a huge victory in the fight against global warming the Supreme Court today issued a ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA  decisively rejecting the Bush administration's inaction on global warming. In a 5-4 vote, the High Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and the other petitioners in the case by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices wrote that the EPA cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons. The Court gave its overwhelming stamp of approval to states that are taking action to fight global warming. At a time when automakers are suing states for taking this step forward, the Supreme Court stated clearly that states have the right to protect their citizens and the environment.  It also provides momentum for efforts in Congress to reduce vehicle emissions.

Read the Sierra Club press release.
Read the Supreme Court decision.

In the news:

Justices push EPA to act on car emissions
April 3, 2007, by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

Stricter emission limits get a boost
April 2, 2007, by Joan Biskupic, USA Today

Supreme Court Rejects Bush in Global Warming Debate
April 2, 2007, by Jenninfer Parker, ABC News

Supreme Court's EPA decision creates political hot potato
April 2, 2007, by Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle

November 29, 2006

On November 29,2006, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark global warming case. The High Court's decision is likely to have a far-reaching impact on future action to fight global warming at both the state and federal levels. James Milkey, Assistant Attorney General for Massachusetts, argued for the petitioners, which include the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, twelve states, three major cities, and numerous other environmental groups.

Read the full Sierra Club Press Release:

Bush EPA’s Refusal to Follow Law on Trial at Supreme Court
November 29, 2006

November 6, 2006

Petitioners in the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency have filed their Merits Reply Brief, which can be found below in the case documents section.

August 31, 2006

On August 31st, 2006 the Sierra Club, along with a vast coalition of states, cities, political leaders, other environmental groups, and utilities filed opening briefs with the Supreme Court in the most far-reaching global warming case to be heard by the nation’s highest court. The Court’s decision in the case, Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., could have a potentially decisive impact on federal, state, and local efforts to tackle global warming. The Sierra Club, the twelve states involved, and the numerous other petitioners have taken this case to the high court to force EPA to comply with the Clean Air Act’s provisions requiring it to regulate any air pollutant that "endanger[s] public health or welfare." The Sierra Club's brief, along with the briefs of numerous supporters, can be found below.

Read more in the Sierra Club Press Release:

Sierra Club Press Release
August 31, 2006

June 3, 2006

Twelve states, several cities, and over a dozen environmental groups, including Sierra Club, have joined together to challenge the EPA's decision to deny their authority to control heat-trapping emissions like carbon dioxide. After receiving a fractured verdict in the D.C Circuit Court this suit has made its way to the Supreme Court. On June 26, 2006 the Court decided to hear the case, setting up a decision with major implications. This case should determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency has both the authority and the duty to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and other major sources, such as power plants. The decision may also determine the legality of California's groundbreaking auto emission standards for greenhouse gases, which have now been adopted by 10 other states.

Combined, cars and power plants are responsible for 60% of US carbon dioxide emissions, making them leading contributors to global warming. The hazards associated with increased greenhouse gases and global warming are far reaching, affecting every American. The Bush administration’s current policy of voluntary emission reductions from major sources of carbon has not been effective at reducing this threat. The Sierra Club is joined by large coalition in challenging the EPA and the Bush administration to take proactive and definitive steps to curb carbon emissions and protect the health and well being of the American people.

Details and Documents:

News Articles:

A first for Supreme Court : Global warming
November 30, 2006 by Marc Sherman (AP) Seattle Post Intelligencer

Global Warming on Trial: Debate between Sierra Club's David Bookbinder and Attorney Russell Jackson
November 20, 2006 The Wall Street Journal Online

Supreme Court tackles global warming
October 27, 2006 by Marc Gunther CNNMoney.com

Newsweek Interview with Sierra Club Attorney David Bookbinder:

A Hot Case : This fall, the Supreme Court will consider perhaps its most important environmental case in recent history.
September 3, 2006 by Debra Rosenberg Newsweek

Supreme Court case challenges Bush stance on global warming California and 11 other states are suing EPA to force curbs on greenhouse gases
August 31, 2006 by Carl T. Hall San Francisco Chronicle

Scientists Voice Support For Curbing CO2
August 31, 2006 by Bette Hileman Chemical and Engineering News

Supreme Court to Hear Bush Environment Case
June 26, 2006 by the Associated Press ABC News

Case Documents:

1. Amicus Brief of Calpine Corporation
2. Amicus Brief of Ocean and Coastal Groups
3. State of Delaware Amicus Brief
4. Amicus Brief of Aspen Ski Company
5. Amicus Brief of North Coast Rivers Alliance et. al.
6. Amicus Brief of Entergy Corporation
7. Amicus Brief of Alaska Natives
8. Amicus Brief of States AZ, IA, MD, MN, WI
9. Amicus Brief of U.S. Conference of Mayors et. al.
10. Brief for Petitioners- Mass vs. EPA Our special thanks to Lisa Heinzerling of Georgeton University Law School, the lead author of the brief.
11. Amicus Brief of Madeline K. Albright
12. Amicus Brief of National Council of Churches
13. Climate Scientists Amicus Brief
14. Amicus Brief of Former EPA Administrators
15. Amicus Brief of National Wildlife Federation
16. Primer for Case
17. Certiorari Questions Presented.pdf
18. EPA Opposition to Certiorari
19. Reply in Support of Certiorari.pdf
20. Petition for Certiorari
21. Climate Scientists Cert Amicus Brief
22. Alaska Natives Cert Amicus Brief
23. US Conference of Majors Cert Amicus Brief
24. Rule 28(j) Submission - new and independent basis for Petitioners' standing

25. Petitioners' Merits Reply Brief