Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 05–1120 
_________________ 

MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[April 2, 2007]

 CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SCALIA, 

JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 

Global warming may be a “crisis,” even “the most press-
ing environmental problem of our time.”  Pet. for Cert. 26, 
22.  Indeed,  it  may  ultimately  affect  nearly  everyone  on 
the planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be
that  governments  have  done  too  little  to  address  it.    It  is 
not a problem, however, that has escaped the attention of
policymakers in the Executive and Legislative Branches of 
our  Government,  who  continue  to  consider  regulatory, 
legislative,  and  treaty-based  means  of  addressing  global
climate change.

Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this 
issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the 
courts  claiming  broad-ranging  injury,  and  attempting  to
tie  that  injury  to  the  Government’s  alleged  failure  to 
comply with a rather narrow statutory provision.  I would 
reject  these  challenges  as  nonjusticiable.  Such  a  conclu-
sion  involves  no  judgment  on  whether  global  warming 
exists,  what  causes  it,  or  the  extent  of  the  problem.    Nor 
does  it  render  petitioners  without  recourse.    This  Court’s 
standing  jurisprudence  simply  recognizes  that  redress  of
grievances  of  the  sort  at  issue  here  “is  the  function  of 
Congress and the Chief Executive,” not the federal courts. 
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 576 (1992).  I