Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

12 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

former  EPA  climatologist,  stated 

at 66, he concluded that at least Massachusetts had “satis-
fied  each  element  of  Article  III  standing—injury,  causa-
tion, and redressability,” id., at 64.  In Judge Tatel’s view,
the  “ ‘substantial  probability,’ ”  id.,  at  66,  that  projected 
rises  in  sea  level  would  lead  to  serious  loss  of  coastal 
property was a “far cry” from the kind of generalized harm 
insufficient  to  ground  Article  III  jurisdiction.    Id.,  at  65. 
He found that petitioners’ affidavits more than adequately 
supported the conclusion that EPA’s failure to curb green-
house  gas  emissions  contributed  to  the  sea  level  changes
that threatened Massachusetts’ coastal property.  Ibid.  As 
to  redressability,  he  observed  that  one  of  petitioners’ 
experts,  a 
that 
“ ‘[a]chievable  reductions  in  emissions  of  CO2  and  other 
[greenhouse  gases]  from  U. S.  motor  vehicles  would  . . . 
delay and moderate many of the adverse impacts of global 
warming.’ ”    Ibid.  (quoting  declaration  of  Michael  Mac-
Cracken,  former  Executive  Director,  U. S.  Global  Change
Research  Program  ¶5(e)  (hereinafter  MacCracken  Decl.),
available  in  2  Petitioners’  Standing  Appendix  in  No.  03–
1361, etc., (CADC), p. 209 (Stdg. App.)).  He further noted 
that the one-time director of EPA’s motor-vehicle pollution
control efforts stated in an affidavit that enforceable emis-
sion  standards  would  lead  to  the  development  of  new
technologies that “ ‘would gradually be mandated by other 
countries  around  the  world.’ ”    415  F. 3d,  at  66  (quoting 
declaration  of  Michael  Walsh  ¶¶7–8,  10,  Stdg.  App.  309–
310, 311).  On the merits, Judge Tatel explained at length
why he believed the text of the statute provided EPA with 
authority  to  regulate  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  and  why 
its  policy  concerns  did  not  justify  its  refusal  to  exercise
that authority.  415 F. 3d, at 67–82. 

IV 
Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court juris-
diction  to  “Cases”  and  “Controversies.”    Those  two  words