Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

12 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

Petitioners offer declarations attempting to address this
uncertainty,  contending  that  “[i]f  the  U. S.  takes  steps  to
reduce  motor  vehicle  emissions,  other  countries  are  very
likely  to  take  similar  actions  regarding  their  own  motor 
vehicles  using  technology  developed  in  response  to  the 
U. S.  program.”  Stdg.  App.  220;  see  also  id.,  at  311–312. 
In  other  words,  do  not  worry  that  other  countries  will 
contribute  far  more  to  global  warming  than  will  U. S. 
automobile  emissions;  someone  is  bound  to  invent  some-
thing,  and  places  like  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  or
India  will  surely  require  use  of  the  new  technology,  re-
gardless of cost.  The Court previously has explained that 
when the existence of an element of standing “depends on 
the  unfettered  choices  made  by  independent  actors  not
before  the  courts  and  whose  exercise  of  broad  and  legiti-
mate  discretion  the  courts  cannot  presume  either  to  con-
trol  or  to  predict,”  a  party  must  present  facts  supporting
an assertion that the actor will proceed in such a manner. 
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 562 (quoting ASARCO 
Inc.  v.  Kadish,  490  U. S.  605,  615  (1989)  (opinion  of 
KENNEDY,  J.);  internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The 
declarations’ conclusory (not to say fanciful) statements do
not even come close. 

No  matter,  the  Court  reasons,  because  any  decrease  in 
domestic emissions will “slow the pace of global emissions
increases,  no  matter  what  happens  elsewhere.”    Ante,  at 
23.  Every  little  bit  helps,  so  Massachusetts  can  sue  over 
any little bit.

The  Court’s  sleight-of-hand  is  in  failing  to  link  up  the
different  elements  of  the  three-part  standing  test.    What 
must  be  likely  to  be  redressed  is  the  particular  injury  in 
fact.  The injury the Court looks to is the asserted loss of 
land.  The Court contends that regulating domestic motor
vehicle emissions will reduce carbon dioxide in the atmos-
phere,  and  therefore  redress  Massachusetts’s  injury.    But 
even  if  regulation  does  reduce  emissions—to  some  inde-