| Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 25, 2015 Decided June 29, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Michigan, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (No. 14-46); Utility Air Regulatory Group, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (No. 14-47); National Mining Association, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (No. 14-49) |
| Docket no. | 14-46 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. 743 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2699; 192 L. Ed. 2d 674 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| The Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when it makes a "finding" that it is "necessary and appropriate" to issue a regulation (in this case, for power plants under the Clean Air Act). | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| Clean Air Act | |
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark[1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.[2]
Writing for a 5–4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the EPA must consider costs and that it interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it determined that it did not need to consider costs when it issued a "finding" that it was "necessary and appropriate" to regulate.[3]
Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency praised the Court's decision,[4] while other commentators criticized Justice Scalia's decision to ignore health impacts in his opinion.[5] Some commentators like Andrew M. Grossmann from the Cato Institute suggested that the decision may derail President Barack Obama's climate change agenda entirely.[6]
- ^ Association of Washington Business, U.S. Supreme Court rules on EPA power regs, set to hear public sector union dues case (July 7, 2015) (describing the Court's decision as a "landmark ruling"); Parallax World: News Through Perspectives, Power Industry Fights EPA Emissions Rules in Supreme Court (March 25, 2015) (describing Michigan v. EPA as a "landmark" case).
- ^ Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-46, 576 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 4, 15 (2015).
- ^ Michigan v. EPA, slip op. at 3–4, 15.
- ^ See, e.g., Jeremy P. Jacobs, Greenwire, Air Pollution: Justices topple EPA mercury regs in ruling seen as limited, June 29, 2015.
- ^ Rebecca Leber, The New Republic, Antonin Scalia Compared a Lifesaving EPA Regulation to a Ferrari, June 29, 2015.
- ^ Grossmann, Andrew M. "Does EPA's Supreme Court Loss Doom Obama's Climate Agenda?". cato.org. Cato Institute. Archived from the original on October 10, 2020.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search