This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA | |
|---|---|
| Case name | Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012); 570 U.S. 535 (2013) [denied certiorari? see text] |
| Decided | 2012 (D.C. Cir.); 2013 (Supreme Court review of stay request) |
| Judges | Harry T. Edwards, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Stephen F. Williams; Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas (concurring in stay), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (dissent) |
| Prior actions | Consolidated challenges including Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency |
| Keywords | Clean Air Act, greenhouse gases, mobile sources, stationary sources, Massachusetts v. EPA, administrative law, standing |
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA is a series of consolidated challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's application of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gas emissions, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2012 and addressed by the United States Supreme Court in 2013 on procedural relief. The litigation followed landmark decisions such as Massachusetts v. EPA and involved petitioners from industries and states challenging EPA rulemakings including the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule. The case shaped administrative law doctrines relating to Chevron deference, jurisdiction, and the regulation of climate change by federal agencies.
The litigation arose after the Supreme Court of the United States decided Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant. Following that decision, the EPA issued the Endangerment Finding (2009) and adopted the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards (commonly called the Tailpipe Rule) and related Stationary Source permitting guidance. Petitioners included industry groups such as the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, corporations like Peabody Energy and Chamber of Commerce of the United States, state governments including Texas and West Virginia, and trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute and National Association of Manufacturers, each challenging rulemakings under statutes including the Clean Air Act and invoking doctrines from cases like Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States.
Consolidated in the D.C. Circuit, the challenges contested the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from both mobile source vehicles and stationary source major emitters, the adequacy of the Endangerment Finding, and the applicability of Title II and Title V permitting requirements. Petitioners argued that the EPA had exceeded statutory authority under the Clean Air Act, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and misinterpreted precedents such as Massachusetts v. EPA and Chevron deference. Respondents included the EPA, the Department of Justice, the State of California, environmental organizations such as Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, and scientific bodies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as amici curiae.
Key legal issues included: whether the EPA's Endangerment Finding was supported by substantial scientific evidence from sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences; whether regulation of greenhouse gases triggered New Source Review and Title V permitting obligations for stationary sources; whether the Clean Air Act's text unambiguously precluded regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the contested manner, implicating Chevron deference; and whether petitioners had standing and whether jurisdiction was proper under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Clean Air Act. Petitioners relied on statutory text and precedent from cases such as Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA in later litigation, while respondents pointed to scientific assessments from entities like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and policy analyses from the Council on Environmental Quality.
In 2012 the D.C. Circuit largely upheld the EPA's actions, rejecting many of the petitioners' claims regarding the Endangerment Finding and the Tailpipe Rule while remanding aspects of permitting implementation. Petitioners sought emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court; in 2013 a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States granted a stay of portions of the EPA's permitting requirements pending further review, with a notable per curiam order and separate opinions by Justices who referenced precedents like Massachusetts v. EPA and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC. The Court's actions reflected tensions among justices including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg over jurisdictional questions and the timing of judicial review.
The decisions influenced regulatory practice by clarifying the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and by shaping expectations for stationary source permitting programs administered by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and state environmental protection agencies including the California Air Resources Board. The litigation affected stakeholders ranging from coal companies like Peabody Energy and oil producers such as ExxonMobil to automotive manufacturers including General Motors and Ford Motor Company, and informed policy debates in the United States Congress and executive actions under administrations like those of Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Related cases and developments included subsequent Supreme Court review in matters such as Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), later administrative rulemakings like the Clean Power Plan and its successor actions, and challenges before federal courts including petitions by states such as Texas and industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers. The evolving jurisprudence engaged entities including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change parties, advisory organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Center for American Progress, and intersected with statutory debates in the United States Senate and regulatory actions by agencies including the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation.
Category:United States administrative case law Category:United States environmental case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases