*1 INC., CO., AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER v. et al. CONNECTICUT et al. Argued April 19,
No. 10-174. 2011 Decided June *3 petitioners. argued With cause for D. Peter Keisler Phillips, Quin M. Soren- Carter G. him on briefs were Fichthorn, Allison W. son, Brownell, F. Norman William Regan, Redish, H. Donald Martin Wood, D. Shawn Patrick Ayer, Fennell, and Mi- E. Holewinski, B. P Thomas Kevin L. chael Rice. argued Katyal
Acting cause for re- Solicitor General support Valley Authority petition- spondent Tennessee him the briefs on Rule 12.6. With ers under this Court’s Deputy Attorney Moreno, Solici- were General Assistant Attorney Deputy Assistant General Knccdlcr, tor General Douglas Letter, N. Lisa E. Shenkman, Gannon, Curtis E. Ralph Byron, Pidot, R. E. Rod- Jones, H. Justin Thomas gers, Cooper, Gillen. Maria V. A. Harriet York, of New General Underwood, D. Solicitоr
Barbara respondents. her argued brief for With the cause for respondents et Eric T. al. were Schnei- *4 of Connecticut State Benjamin Attorney York, N. Gut- derman, of New General Wagner, Deputy Assistant man, General, Monica Solicitor Morgan Myers, Costello, A. General, and Michael J. Solicitor Attorneys as well Rosenthal, General, and Robert Assistant Attorneys George Jepsen Connecticut, Kamala of as General Iowa, of Peter F. Miller of Thomas J. California,
D. Harris Vermont, H. of Sorrell of Island, Kilmartin Rhode William D. Doni- Pawa, David F. and A. Cardozo. Matthew Michael ger, Kellogg, Gregory Goldman, Gerald and Michael K. G. Rapawy respondents Opеn Space filed a brief for Institute, Inc., et al.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal for State of Indi were filed Zoeller, Gregory F. by Indiana, Thomas M. ana et al. of Attorney General Fisher, McVeigh Ashley Cencral, Hagan and Heather Tai- Solicitor and Harwel, Jr.,
man Ryan, H. Deputy Attorneys General, William by Acting Attorney Pennsylvania, by Attorneys of General and General for their Strange follows! Luther John J. respective Alabama, as Burns Statos of of Alaska, Arkansas, Thomas C.Horne McDaniel Arizona, of of Dustin John W. Suthors Pamela Jo Bondi Samuel Olens of Colorado, Florida, of of S. Lawrence G. Georgia, Idaho, Wasden Derek Schmidt Jack Kansas, of of Conway Kentucky, “Buddy” James D. Chris Ros Louisiana, of of Caldwell ter of Missouri, Bruning Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem Jon of of North Dakota, Michael DeWine E. Pruitt of Alan Ohio, Oklahoma, of Scott Wil son of Marty Carolina, Dakota, Jackley of Mark L. South South Shurtleff Jr., McGraw, V. Utah, of Salzburg Darrell and Bruce A Virginia, West of Wyoming; Richard 0. by for the American et al. Chemistry Council Faulk Gray; and John S. for the of Global Automakers al. Association et by Raymond T/ndwismoski; B. P. by for the Business Roundtable Robert Charrow, Kla/uo, Mandelbaum; Laura and David G. for the Cato Metcoff by Megan L. Ilya Brown and Shapiro; for Institute Chamber of Com merce of the United Gregory Garre, G. P. States of America Richard by Bress, Bell, Conrad; K Gаbriel Robin S: and A., Chevron Inc., for Clement, Ashley D. by ot Parrish, Collins, Paul C. P. al. Raynuoud Daniel Goodman, Ripple, Swartz, Michael Donna L. C. J. Russell Trade Ren- froe, Clubok, Andrew B. E. Engel; Susan and Energy for Consumer Tristan L. by Alliance al. Massey; Duncan and S. et Jonathan for DRI— Cairns, R. Voice Matthew John Parker by Defense Bar Sweeney, Sky Woodward, T. Nilan, Gray, T. Cynthia Michael Peter P. Arends, Benjamin Rolf; and J. by for Institute et al. Edison Electric Christopher Handman, T. Parella, Comer, Dominic F. Edward H. Wil Gronmiller; liam L. Kelly, Fang, Susan N. and Rao E. for Law Profe33ors Rivkin, by David B. Jr., Casey; and LooA. for the Mountain Legal States Lochnor; by Steven J. Foundation for Black National Chamber Com Glaser, Nagle, Peter by merce et Douglаs S. Mark E. A Hender al. son; for the National Independent Small Federation Business Business Schwartz, Legal Goldberg, Philip Victor Center et al. Christopher E. S. E, Appeli Earned, Milito, Nelson; Karon R. Douglas Elizabeth T. for Legal the Pacific Schiff; R. S. and Damien Foundation M. Radford *5 opinion of the Court. delivered Ginsburg Justice question opinion the whether this address in We (several city and York, three plaintiffs New States, trusts) public common-law private maintain federal land can (four private against emitters claims carbon-dioxide nuisance Valley companies Author- power Tennessee and the federal setting plaintiffs ity). ask for decree relief, As caр, an initial defendant at for each carbon-dioxide emissions annually. Air Act and the to be further reduced Agency authorizes, Act action the Protection Environmental pursue. displace seek hold, we the claims Goessling, Lee by Shannon Foundation, Ine., Legal et al. the Southeastern Kazmarek; Washington Harry MacDougald, and Edward A for W. Andrews; Cory L. Popeo and for Nicholas Daniel J. Legal by Foundation Kratovil; Jr., Christopher Repre- Krill, R and for John P. by Johnson and by Mary Neumayr. B. Upton et sentative Fred al. for the State of of amici curiae affirmance were filed urging Briefs Carolina, by Roy Cooper, Attorney of North et General al. North Carolina Jr., Guliok, C. General, Jamos Christopher Browning, G. Senior Solicitor Bernstein, Special Deputy Attor- D. Attorney General, and Marc Deputy General, respective Attorneys for their States as ney by and General F. Maryland, Douglas Gansler Illinois, and Madigan Lisa follows: Inc., Massachusetts; Renewables, et al. Coakley Martha for AUEarth Banner; May Potter; R-. by Jamos and Stuart by Lori for Law Profeooors Volkor; C. Stephan by for Tort ct al. for the North Rivero Alliance Coant se; and for the Unitarian Univer- by Douglas Kysar, pro A Law Scholars Miltenberg. et al. Ned Ministry by for salist Earth the American Farm Bureau Fedor of amici curiao woro filed Briefs Henderson, Naglе, A. Glaser, Douglas E. S. Mark Peter by ation al. et Steen; Charles by et al. and Ellen Institute for the American Petroleum Bates; Jeffrey Jurisprudence Fried Constitutional for the Center for III; Eastman, Anthony Caso, Moooo and Edwin for Dofondcro John T. by II, Glitzenstein, S. Eubanks Jason R. William Eric by al. of Wildlife et Donahue; Law Rylander, H. Professors C. Sean for Environmental Leila, se; of Home Build- pro Association Amanda C. by for the National Ward; Anderson, G. Amy J. and for James C. Chai and Thomas ers Hecker, W.H. Wess- Matthew Webster,James M. D., et al. Richard Ph. ler, Bryant. H. and Arthur
H (2007), EPA, Massachusetts v. 549 S.U. 497 this Court held that the Clean Air 69 Act, 322, as 42 Stat. amended, § seq., regulation U. 7401 et S. C. authorizes federal emis- greenhouse gases. “[Nat- siоns of carbon dioxide and other urally present atmosphere . in the . and . also emitted greenhouse gases activities,” human are so named because they “trap escape . .. heat that would otherwise from the atmosphere, [Earth’s] greenhouse and thus form the effect helps keep enough that the Earth warm for life.” 74 Fed. (2009).1 Reg. 66499 held Massachusetts Environ- (EPA Agency Agency) mental Protection or had misread rulemaking petition Clean Air Act seeking it when denied a greenhouse gas controls on new emissions from motor vehi- gases, cles. at 510-511. Greenhouse we deter- qualify pollutant[s]” meaning mined, as “air of the within governing provision, (quoting Clean Air Act id., at 528-529 §7602(g)); they regulatory are therefore within EPA’s ken. authority gas greenhouse Because EPA had to set emission explanation” standards and had offered no “reasoned for fail- ing to Agency so, do we concluded that the had not acted “in requested accordance with when law” it denied the rule- making. 7607(d)(9)(A)). § (quoting Id.,
Responding Massachusetts, our decision in EPA un- greenhouse gas regulation. dertook In December Agency greenhouse gas concluded that emissions from motor may pollution “cause, vehicles to, contribute air which rea- sonably anticipated endanger public be health or welfare,” regulatory 7521(a)(1); trigger. Reg. thе Act’s 74 Fed. Agency “atmospheric greenhouse 66496. The observed that gas essentially concentrations are now at elevated and un- precedented anthropogenic entirely levels,” almost “due to dioxide, In addition primary greenhouse gases to carbon emitted methane, oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, human activities include nitrous perfluorocarbons, Reg. and sulfur hexafluoride. 74 Fed. 66499. temperatures, global emissions,” 66517; mean id., at “unambiguous warming Agency continued, demonstrate particularly years,” “over the trend over last 100 Acknowledging years,” all past that not scientists ibid. global consequences agreed of the rise on the causes temperatures, 66523-66524, EPA con- id., supported “compelling” the “attribution evidence cluded anthropogenic” change emissions of observed climate Consequent dangers greenhouse gases, at 66518. id., gas greenhouse in- determined, EPA included emissions, *7 inundation and ero- coastal deaths; heat-related creases rising by melting icecaps and sea more levels; sion caused frequent “extreme hurricanes, floods, and other and intense destroy infrastructure; and weather events” that cause death drought snowpaek and shift- in mountain due to reductions ecosystems ing sup- precipitation patterns; of destruction “significant porting plants; potentially dis- animals and ruptions” production. at 66524-66535.2 Id., of food Transportation subsequently Department
EPA and the of joint light-duty regulating from issued a final rule emissions (2010), joint Reg. a 75 25324 initiated vehicles, see Fed. heavy-duty rulemaking covering vehicles, medium- and see requirements began phasing id., at 74152. EPA also “[mjajor gas] [greenhouse emitting facilities” new modified 7475(a)(4); § technology.” 75 use the “best available control Reg. Finally, EPA commenced a rule- Fed. 31520-31521. § making 7411, 42 C. to set limits of the Act, under 111 gas greenhouse new, modified, and exist- emissions ing powerplants. a Pursuant to settlement fossil-fuel fired issuing pro- committed finalized in March EPA has by May posed by July rule 2012. Seе 2011, and a final rule Heretic, g., e. Y. Dawidoff, The N. EPA's, see, Civil opposing For views caution, Court, endorses 2009, p. we Magazine, Mar. Times 32. particular complicated related carbon-dioxide no view of issues change. and climate emissions Valley Reg. Reply 82392;
75 Fed. Brief for Tennessee Au- thority 18.
II began The lawsuits we consider here well before EPA ini- regulate just greenhouse gases tiated the efforts to de- July groups plaintiffs separate scribed. 2004,two of filed complaints against in the Southern District of York New major power companies. group same five electric The first plaintiffs City, eight included States3 and New York joined nonprofit groups second three trusts;4 land both are respondents petitioners, defendants, here. The now are private companies5 Authority, Valley four and the Tennessee federally corporation 'a operates owned fired fossil-fuel powerplants According complaints, in several to the States. largest the defendants “are the five emitters carbon diox- App. ide in the United States.” Their 118. collective percent annual emissions of 650 million tons constitute power per- emissions from the sector, domestic electric cent of emissions from activities, ibid., all human domestic percent anthropogenic and 2.5 all worldwide, emissions App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a.
By contributing global warming, asserted, the defendants’ carbon-dioxide emissions created “substan- *8 public rights,” tial and unreasonable interference with in vio- lation the of of nuisance, or, common law interstate App. in the alternative, state tort law. 103-105,145-147. City alleged public The States and New York lands, in- change. frastructure, and health were at risk from climate at urged change Id., 88-93. The trusts that climate would 3California, Connecticut, Iowa, Jersey, York, New Island, New Rhode Vermont, Wisconsin, Jersey and although New Wisconsin are no longer participating. Respondent 3, Brief for Connecticut et al. 1. n. 4Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Consеrvancy, Space Inc., and Audubon Society of Hampshire. New 5 (and American Electric Company, wholly Power a Inc. owned subsid iary), Company, Energy Inc., Southern Cinergy Corporation. Xcel
419 species destroy and rare of trees and animals habitats for Id., at plants and conserved. owned 139- on land the trusts requiring sought injunctive plaintiffs relief each 145. All cap emissions and then re- “to carbon dioxide defendant its year by specified percentage each for at a least duce them at 153. Id., 110, decade.” presenting suits as non- both
The District Court dismissed citing justiciable political questions, 369 Carr, Baker v. U. S. (1962), reversed, F. 3d 309 186 (2009). but the Circuit Second Appеals questions, the Court of
theOn threshold by political question held that the were not barred suits adequately plaintiffs had id., at and that the doctrine, standing, alleged 349. id., III at Article Turning to held that all merits, the Second Circuit the “federal law had claim under stated a Id., determination, For this of nuisance.” 371. dominantly of this court on a series Court’s decisions relied holding may to abate air and maintain suits water that States by pollution produced by out-of-state indus- other States try. g., Milwaukee, Illinois v. Id., see, e. 350-351; I) (Milwaukee (1972) (recognizing right of Illi- 91, 93, discharge abate nois sue in federal court to sew- district age Michigan). into Lake Appeals further determined that
The
Court
“displace"
law. In
Air
federal common
Milwau-
Act did not
(1981) (Milwaukee II),
Illinois,
kee v.
451 U. S.
displaced
Congress
held that
had
this Court
recognized
right
I
Milwaukee
of action
common-law
adopting
Act,
Water
S. C.
amendments to the Clean
all-encompassing
seq.
legislation
an
installed
1251 et
That
expert
regulatory program, supervised
administrative
pollu-
agency,
comprehensively with interstate water
to deal
prohibited
discharge
pol-
legislation
tion.
itself
permit
without
lutants
of the United States
into
waters
authority.
proper
II,
permitting
Milwaukee
from a
*9
1311).
(citing
of the Second
At the time
S., at 310-311
U.
by
yet promulgated
decision,
Circuit’s
any
contrast, EPA had not
regulating greenhouse gases,
rule
fact
court
thought dispositive.
We
certiorari.
IV A general “There is no federal R. law,” Erie Co.v. Tompkins, (1938), famously recognized. 304 U. S. 64, 78 understanding the wake Erie, however, a keener devel- 6In addition to renewing question the political argument made below, pctitionoro now They aooort additional thrcohold obotaclc: occlc dio- missal “prudential” because of a adjudication generalized bar to grievances, purportedly Article bar. distinct from Ill’s See Brief for Ten- ncoocc Valley Authority 14-24; Brief Pctitionoro 30-31.
421 Friendly, of the generally Erie —And oped. Praise See (1964). U. L. Rev. 89 N. Y. 383 Law, Common New Federal ought them,” be left to 39 “le[ft] what the states Erie to required “federal courts thus 405, at Rev., N. Y. U. L. ap- law [to] matters of substantive state decisions follow by id,., cognizable at 422. Erie also propriately states,” sparked emergence areas decisional law “the federal Rev., The U. L. at 405. 39 N. Y. of national concern.” “subjects na- within law addresses “new” federal common Congress power lеgislative has so directed” or where tional Id., so of the Constitution demands. the basic scheme where protection un- is 421-422. Environmental 408, 119, at n. power,” doubtedly legislative one in “within national area “statutory may interstices,” and, which courts fill federal necessary, Id., federal law.” 421-422. if even “fashion “When we with in Milwaukee I: deal As the stated Court aspects, there air and water in their or interstate is ambient U. at 103. federal common law.” 406 compatible predating Erie, but Decisions this Court emerging that decision between with distinction from “general “specialized law,” federal commonlaw” and Friendly, supra, approved federal have commоn-law 405, brought by pollution emanating one to abate from suits State g., Illinois, 180 See, another v. State. (1901) e. Missouri enjoin (permitting Chicago 241-243 suit Missouri waters); sewage discharging into interstate untreated Jersey City 283 U. S. York, New v. Newof (1931) City stop dumping (ordering garbage off New York Jersey coast); Georgia Copper Co., Tennessee New v. (1916) companies private copper (ordering to curtail
U. 650 S. discharges harm in caused sulfur-dioxide in Tennessee (post-Erie Georgia). at S., I, See also Milwaukee sewage discharges upholding to abate Illinois decision suit right Michigan). plaintiffs contend that their into Lake inexorably line of from that this maintain suit follows decisiоns.
Recognition subject gover that a is meet for law necessarily nance, however, does not mean controlling should courts create the Absent a law. demon strated need for a federal decision, rule of the Court has prudent “adopting] readymade taken “the course” of body of state law as the federal rule of decision until Con gress *11 a strikes different accommodation.” United States v. (1979); Foods, Inc., Kimbell 440 U. 740 715, S. see Bank of America Nat. Parnell, Trust & Sav. Assn. v. 352 29, (1956). borrowing here, And where, as law of a particular inappropriate, State would be the Court remains power that it mindful does not have creative akin to that Congress. vested in Illinois, See v. Missouri 200 U. S. (“fact (1906) 519 that this court must mean, decide does not place legislature”); that it course, takes the aof cf. United Cal., States v. Standard Oil Co. S.U. (1947)(holding that federal law determines whether Govern indemnity company ment secure could whose truck injured declining impose soldier, United States to but Congress, such indemnity an primary absent action “the affairs”). most often the exclusive arbiter of federal fiscal plaintiffs heavily rely, the cases on which the States permitted challenge activity were to sue to harmful to their yet citizens’ health and welfare. We not have decided trusts) private (here, political whether citizens the land (New City) may subdivisions York of a invoke the State fed- eral pollution. common law of nuisance to abate out-of-state may have any Nor we ever held that a State sue to abate pollution and all originating maimer of outside its borders. argue The defendants that considerations of scale and com- plexity distinguish global warming from the more bounded pollution giving past rise to suits. nuisance Green- gases house once emitted well in “become mixed the atmos- phere,” Reg. Jersey may Fed. 66514; emissions New flooding no contribute more to in New York than emissions in China. Cf. plaintiffs, Brief for Petitioners 18-19. The remedy against equitable hand, contend the other largest in the United is dioxide States emitters carbon judicial competence. beyond Brief for See not in order and Space Open et al. 32-85. And we Respondent Institute recognized public like common law law, have nuisance generally, adapts changing factual circum- scientific (adjudicating claim at 522 Missouri, 200 U. stances. simple though of the kind that it did not concern “nuisance law”); D’Oench, see also was known to the common older (1942) (Jackson, J., 447, 472 v. 315 U. FDIC, Duhme & Co. S. (“federal apply concurring) the traditional free are courts fashioning technique of decision” when common-law law). regard. dispute parties’ this We need not address question in the absence of the whether, For it is an academic authorizes, the Act Air Act and the EPA actions curtail- claim for common-law could state a federal greenhouse gas of their emissions because contribu- ment of warming. Any global claim would be dis- such tion *12 authorizing regulate legislation EPA placed by to the federal emissions. carbon-dioxide
B “[Wjhen previously gov- Congress question a addresses the law,” a on federal rested erned decision explained, an unusual exercise need for such has “the Court disappears.” law-making Milwaukee courts of federal (holding to Clean II, at that amendments the S., 451 314 U. recognized displaced claim in Water Act the nuisance Mil- I). Legislative displacement of federal commonlaw waukee a require of clear and not sort of evidence does “same preemption purpose” for [congressional] demanded manifest regard pre- “'[D]ue for the 317. S., of state 451 law. U. system pro- embracing ... as suppositions federal of our Diego democracy,’” (quoting Build- id., at San moter of 316 (1959)), ing Garmon, 236, U. S. 243 359 Trades Council v. primarily of the office it is calculus, not for does enter 424 courts,
Congress, not federal to national policy prescribe Hill, TVA interest, areas of special v. (1978). The test for whethеr congressional legislation excludes declaration of law federal common is simply whether the statute “speakfs] directly to question” [the] Corp. Higginbotham, issue. Mobil Oil 436 U. v. S. County II, Milwaukee Oneida (1978); see atS., 315; of Y., Oneida Indian Nation N. v. 470 U. S.
(1985).
We that hold Air Act the EPA it actions authorizes to displace federal common-law seek any right abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired Massachusetts made powerplants. plain emissions carbon dioxide air qualify subject as pollution regulation under the Act. 549 U. at 528-529. And we think it equally the Act plain directly” to “speaks emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendants’ plants.
Section 111 of the Act directs the EPA Administrator to list “categories that “in stationary sources” [her] . judgment.. caus[e], or air to, significantly contribute] pol- lution which may be reasonably anticipated endanger 7411(b)(1)(A). health public § or welfare.” Once EPA lists category, Agency must establish standards of perform- ance for emission of new modified pollutants sources within that § § 7411(b)(1)(B); 7411(a)(2). see also category. And, 7411(d) most relevant here, then requires regulation sources existing within the same category.7 For exist- ing sources, EPA issues emissions see 40 guidelines, CFR §§ 60.23 60.22, (2009); with those compliance guidelines subject then oversight, States issue perform- ance standards stationary sources within their jurisdic- *13 7411(d)(1). § tion, 7411(d) exception: § There is may employ existing EPA not if
stationary pollutant question regulated sources the in are under the quality §§7408-7410, national air program, ambient or the standard “haz pollutants” 7411(d)(1). § § ardous air program, 7412. See multiple for enforcement. See provides avenues The Act (reach of remedial County at 237-239 Oneida, S.,U. important whether statute provisions determination to is law). may delegate im- displaces EPA common federal authority States, to the plementation and enforcement power 7411(c)(1),(d)(1), Agency §§ to the in- retains but impose regulated to administra- spect sources, and monitor noncompliance, civil pеnalties to commence ac- tive for 7411(c)(2), §§ (d)(2), against polluters court. in federal tions imposes specified circumstances, the Act 7413, 7414. knowingly any penalties person violates who criminal on 7413(c). § §7411. under See emissions standards issued (or provides private If States enforcement. And the Act for EPA) against regulated emissions limits fail to enforce “any bring permits person” a en- civil sources, the Act 7604(a). § court. forcement action particular pol- a limits for If EPA does not set emissions parties may pollution, private States lutant source response rulemaking petition matter, a and EPA’s for 7607(b)(1); § court. See Massa- will be reviewable in federal noted, chusetts, 529. As earlier see 516-517, 649 U. § currently engaged supra, ain rule- 417-418, EPA is greenhouse gas making emissions to set standards litigation brought powerplants. To settle fossil-fuel fired 7607(b) majority by group included under Agency agreed complete very plaintiffs case, this Reg. by May rulemaking 2012. 75 Fed. 82392. The provides limits on emissions a means seek Act itself thus powerplants same re- domestic of carbon dioxide from —the by invoking plaintiffs law. We lief seek parallel track. see room for no
C argue, held, that Circuit fed- Second as actually displaced exer- until EPA eral common law is not authority, regulatory it e., i. until sets standards its cises *14 governing emissions frоm the defendants’ We plants. disagree. in Milwaukee II, at sewage we discharges issue do overlook,
not were to effluent limits set subject EPA; statute, under source displacing “[e]very point discharge” of water was unless covered pollution “prohibited per- Mil- deleted). mit.” 451 at (emphasis As waukee II clear, however, made the relevant question purposes displacement is “whether the field has been occu- it pied, not whether has in a particular been man- occupied Id., at 324. ner.” selects necessity, Congress Of different to regulatory regimes address problems. different Con- gress could hardly every preemptively prohibit discharge of carbon unless dioxide covered aby all, After we permit. each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing.
The Clean Air is Act no less exercise of the Legisla- ture’s “considered judgment” concerning regulation of until air it because pollution emissions EPA permits acts. County Sewerage Authority See Middlesex v. National Sea Assn., Clammers (1981) 1, 22, n. 32 (finding dis- placement although “allowed some continued Congress dump- date). ing sludge” to a prior certain The critical is point that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and to how regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from powerplants; is what delegation law. In- displaces
deed, EPA to were decline to carbon-dioxide regulate emis- sions the conclusion its altogether 7411 rule- ongoing making, federal courts would no warrant have to employ the federal common law of to nuisance upset Agency’s expert determination.
EPA’s add, we hasten to not judgment, would escape judi- supra, cial review. courts, observed, Federal we earlier see at (or can review rule action a final agency declining action) take to ensure with the statute compliance Congress supra, noted, enacted. As we have see Air Act directs EPA standards for establish emissions catego- ries of stationary that, sоurces “in [the judg- Administrator’s] significantly pollution contribute] air to, ment,” “caus[e], or endanger public anticipated may reasonably be which *15 §7411(b)(1)(A). “[T]he of the word use health or welfare.” ” Massachusetts, ‘judgment,’ explained in “is not rov- we statutory ignore ing text.” 549 U. at 533. license to within discretion defined “It is a direction to exercise but may regulate statutory not decline to EPA limits.” Ibid. powerplants if to act refusal from carbon-dioxide emissions “arbitrary, capricious, discretion, an abuse would be 7607(d)(9)(A). § If with law.” otherwise not in accordance outcome of with the in this case are dissatisfied rulemaking, forthcoming under federal their recourse EPA’s ultimately, Appeals to review, and, law is to seek Court petition for in this Court. certiorari decisionmaking prescribed first Indeed, order of this —the agency, expert administrative under the Act is
decider yet judges to reason resist another second, —is by judicial setting decree under emissions standards any par- regulation appropriate law. 'The amount tort pre- greenhouse gas-producing be sector cannot ticular questions other of national in a vacuum: As with scribed competing policy, assessment of informed or international Along required. bene- the environmental interests is with energy potentially and needs fit our Nation’s achievablе, disruption weigh possibility in the must of economic balance. complex balancing to Air such Act entrusts regu- with state instance,
EPA in the combination first performance” must EPA sets lators. Each “standard of achieving [emissions] “tak[e] reduc- into account the cost of impact any quality and nonair health and environmental tion §§7411(a)(1), (d)(1); (b)(1)(B), energy requirements.” (EPA 60.24(f) § may permit plans to. state see also 40 CFR upon generally applicable emissions standards deviate “[Unreasonable”). may EPA are demonstration costs stationary “distinguish among types, classes, sizes” responsibility apportioning emissions reduc- sources in 60.22(b)(5). 7411(b)(2), §§ § (d); tions. see also And 40 CFR Agency may compliance waive with emission limits to permit facility technological to drive an “innovative test system” [yet] adequately that has “not been demonstrated.” 7411( j)(l)(A). cooperation The Act envisions extensive be- §§ (b), 7401(a), gener- tween authorities, federal and state see permitting ally each to take first cut State at determin- ing how best achieve EPA emissions standards within its 7411(c)(1),(d)(l)-(2). §§ domain, see altogether Congress designated expert fitting It is agency, primary regula- here, EPA, as best suited serve as gas expert greenhouse agency tor of emissions. The is surely equipped job better do the than individual district judges issuing case-by-case injunctions. ad hoc, Federal judges *16 technological lack the scientific, economic, and re- agency coping sources can utilize in with issues of this generally order. See Inc. v. Chevron U. S. A. Natural Re- (1984). Council, Inc., sources 467 U. S. Defense Judges may not commission studies scientific or convene groups experts for advice, or rules issue under notice- procedures inviting input by any and-comment interested person, regulators or seek the counsel of in the States where the judges by defendants are located. are Rather, confined comprising parties present. record the evidence the judges, sitting adjudicators, Moreover, federаl district as sole authority precedential lack binding to render decisions other judges, even members of the same court.
Notwithstanding plaintiffs propose disabilities, these judges that individual federal determine, in the first in- stance, what amount of carbon-dioxide is “unrea- emissions App. sonable,” what 103,145, then decide level of reduc- “practical, economically is tion feasible and at viable,” id., 119. These determinations would be made the defend- plaintiffs. ants named in the two lawsuits launched Similar suits could be mounted, counsel for the States City against and New York estimated, “thousands or hun- fitting dreds or description tens” other defendants Tr. emissions. “large сarbon-dioxide contributors” Arg. 57. Oral commit to federal judgments plaintiffs would
The any district, in judges, be filed in suits that could decisionmaking scheme Con- with the be reconciled cannot ruling in hold, we erred, gress Circuit The enacted. Second gas greenhouse judges may emis- limits on set empowering EPA to the same limits, set of a in face law sions against only judicial action “arbi- subject to ensure review trary, capricious, with not accordance otherwise ... or 7607(d)(9). law.”
V particu- sought law, state under relief The also operate the defendants where the law of each State lar, App. powerplants. Circuit did 105, 147. Second See it held that federal because the state-law claims not reach see governed. 3d, 392; International 582 F. law (1987) (if a case Paper Ouellette, 479 S. Co. v. commonlaw[,]... to federal be reference “should resolved light holding pre-empted”). [is] of our law state common displaces law, federal common Act Air depends, availability alia, inter of state lawsuit vel non preemptive Id., 489, 491, Act. effect of the federal preclude ag- (holding does not Act that the Clean Water pursuant bringing claim grieved a “nuisance individuals State”). parties of the have None the source to the law of *17 availability preemption addressed or otherwise briefed therefore leave law. We under state nuisance of claim open on remand. consideration matter ‡ ^
^ judgment of the stated, we reverse the reasons For proceedings the case for further remand Circuit Second opinion. with this consistent
isIt so ordered. part in the consideration or took no Sotomayor Justice decision this case.
Justice
Alito, with whom Justice
Thomas
joins,
concurring
part in the
concurring
judgment.
I
judgment,
agree
concur
and I
with the Court’s
displacement
(which
analysis
assumption
I make for
argument
otherwise)
the sake
party
because no
contends
interpretation
that the
of the
Act,
Clean Air
42 U. S. C.
adopted
seq.,
majority
et
in Massachusetts v.
(2007),
EPA,