Massachusetts v. EPA

Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 · Administrative Law

549 U.S. 497 (2007)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawstate standingrulemaking petitionsArticle III standingprocedural rightspecial solicitudequasi-sovereign interestsrulemaking petition

Facts

A group of private organizations petitioned EPA in 1999 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under Clean Air Act § 202. EPA denied the petition in 2003 on two grounds: it said the Clean Air Act did not authorize regulation of greenhouse gases for climate change purposes, and alternatively said that even if it had authority, regulation would be unwise at that time for policy reasons including scientific uncertainty, preference for a comprehensive presidential approach, and foreign policy concerns. Massachusetts and other petitioners challenged that denial, alleging harms from climate change including loss of Massachusetts coastal land from rising sea levels. EPA did not dispute the causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Issue

Whether Massachusetts had Article III standing to challenge EPA's denial of the rulemaking petition, whether Clean Air Act § 202(a)(1) authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, and whether EPA's stated reasons for refusing to regulate were lawful under the statute.

Rule

A litigant must show a concrete and particularized actual or imminent injury, traceability, and likely redressability, but a litigant given a procedural right by Congress need not satisfy the normal standards for redressability and immediacy in full and has standing if there is some possibility the requested relief will prompt reconsideration of the challenged decision. A State asserting quasi-sovereign interests and a congressionally conferred procedural right is entitled to special solicitude in the standing analysis. Under Clean Air Act § 202(a)(1), greenhouse gases are 'air pollutants,' and EPA may avoid further action only by determining that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or by giving a reasonable explanation why it cannot or will not decide that question; reasons for action or inaction must conform to the statute.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A coalition petitions a federal environmental agency to regulate emissions from new commercial ferries under a statute that allows petitions for rulemaking and judicial review of final denials. Oregon joins the challenge after the agency denies the petition, alleging that rising ocean levels are already eroding state-owned coastal marshland near Newport and threatening additional sovereign territory.

If Oregon seeks judicial review of the denial, which is the strongest argument that Oregon has Article III standing?

Explanation. The majority held that a State receives special solicitude in the standing analysis when it asserts quasi-sovereign interests and relies on a congressionally conferred procedural right to challenge agency action. A widely shared harm can still be concrete, and the State need not show complete elimination of the injury. It must still show injury, traceability, and some possibility of redress, but the procedural-right setting relaxes the usual demands for immediacy and redressability.