Supreme Court Chastises Bush Administration For “Arbitrary, Capricious” Handling of Climate Change

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Even the Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush I and Bush II (Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) couldn’t stop the Court from repudiating the current Administration’s head-in-the–sand approach for dealing with climate change. Today’s 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, called the administration’s approach “arbitrary, capricious … or otherwise not in accordance with law” and found that the EPA does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse-causing gases under the Clean Air Act.

The majority opinion contends that the “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.” While the decision does not necessarily compel the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (and don’t hold your breath), the ruling is significant since it frees the hand of the next President to regulate carbon and methane emissions without Congress passing additional legislation.

What the decision also does is clear the way for states to reduce greenhouse emissions with initiatives of their own. In the past, states like California that have asked the EPA for special permission to apply more stringent carbon emission limits on automobiles have been stymied by the Administration’s claim that the Clean Air Act does not provide the authority to do so.

—Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate