Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

13 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

terminate  degree,  given  events  elsewhere  in  the  world—
the Court never explains why that makes it likely that the 
injury in fact—the loss of land—will be redressed.  School-
children  know  that  a  kingdom  might  be  lost  “all  for  the 
want  of  a  horseshoe  nail,”  but  “likely”  redressability  is  a
different matter.  The realities make it pure conjecture to
suppose that EPA regulation of new automobile emissions 
will likely prevent the loss of Massachusetts coastal land. 

V 

Petitioners’  difficulty  in  demonstrating  causation  and 
redressability  is  not  surprising  given  the  evident  mis-
match  between  the  source  of  their  alleged  injury—
catastrophic  global  warming—and  the  narrow  subject
matter of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in this suit.
The mismatch suggests that petitioners’ true goal for this 
litigation  may  be  more  symbolic  than  anything  else.  The 
constitutional  role  of  the  courts,  however,  is  to  decide 
concrete  cases—not  to  serve  as  a  convenient  forum  for 
policy  debates.  See  Valley  Forge  Christian  College  v. 
Americans  United  for  Separation  of  Church  and  State, 
Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) (“[Standing] tends to assure 
that  the  legal  questions  presented  to  the  court  will  be 
resolved,  not  in  the  rarified  atmosphere  of  a  debating 
society,  but  in  a  concrete  factual  context  conducive  to
a  realistic  appreciation  of  the  consequences  of  judicial
action”).

When  dealing  with  legal  doctrine  phrased  in  terms  of
what  is  “fairly”  traceable  or  “likely”  to  be  redressed,  it  is 
perhaps not surprising that the matter is subject to some 
debate.  But  in  considering  how  loosely  or  rigorously  to
define  those  adverbs,  it  is  vital  to  keep  in  mind  the  pur-
pose of the inquiry.  The limitation of the judicial power to 
cases  and  controversies  “is  crucial  in  maintaining  the 
tripartite allocation of power set forth in the Constitution.” 
DaimlerChrysler, 547 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (internal