Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

Cite as:  549 U. S. ____ (2007) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

confine  “the  business  of  federal  courts  to  questions  pre-
sented  in  an  adversary  context  and  in  a  form  historically 
viewed  as  capable  of  resolution  through  the  judicial  proc-
ess.”  Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 95 (1968).  It is there-
fore  familiar  learning  that  no  justiciable  “controversy” 
exists  when  parties  seek  adjudication  of  a  political  ques-
tion, Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849), when they ask for 
an  advisory  opinion,  Hayburn’s  Case,  2  Dall.  409  (1792), 
see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 700, n. 33 (1997), 
or  when  the  question  sought  to  be  adjudicated  has  been
mooted  by  subsequent  developments,  California  v.  San 
Pablo  &  Tulare  R.  Co.,  149  U. S.  308  (1893).    This  case 
suffers from none of these defects. 

The parties’ dispute turns on the proper construction of a 
congressional  statute,  a  question  eminently  suitable  to 
resolution in federal court.  Congress has moreover author-
ized  this  type  of  challenge  to  EPA  action.    See  42  U. S. C. 
§7607(b)(1).  That authorization is of critical importance to
the  standing  inquiry:  “Congress  has  the  power  to  define
injuries  and  articulate  chains  of  causation  that  will  give 
rise  to  a  case  or  controversy  where  none  existed  before.” 
Lujan, 504 U. S., at 580 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part 
and  concurring  in  judgment).    “In  exercising  this  power,
however,  Congress  must  at  the  very  least  identify  the
injury  it  seeks  to  vindicate  and  relate  the  injury  to  the 
class of persons entitled to bring suit.”  Ibid.  We will not, 
therefore, “entertain citizen suits to vindicate the public’s
nonconcrete  interest  in  the  proper  administration  of  the 
laws.”  Id., at 581. 

EPA  maintains  that  because  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
inflict widespread harm, the doctrine of standing presents
an  insuperable  jurisdictional  obstacle.  We  do  not  agree.
At bottom, “the gist of the question of standing” is whether
petitioners have “such  a personal stake in the outcome of
the  controversy  as  to  assure  that  concrete  adverseness 
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the