Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 40

2 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

would  vacate  the  judgment  below  and  remand  for  dis-
missal of the petitions for review. 

I 

Article  III,  §2,  of  the  Constitution  limits  the  federal 
judicial power to the adjudication of “Cases” and “Contro-
versies.”  “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy,
the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the
law  in  the  course  of  doing  so.”  DaimlerChrysler  Corp.  v. 
Cuno, 547 U. S. ___, ___ (2006) (slip op., at 5).  “Standing
to  sue  is  part  of  the  common  understanding  of  what  it 
takes  to  make  a  justiciable  case,” Steel  Co.  v.  Citizens  for 
Better  Environment,  523  U. S.  83,  102  (1998),  and  has
been described as “an essential and unchanging part of the 
case-or-controversy  requirement  of  Article  III,”  Defenders 
of Wildlife, supra, at 560. 

Our modern framework for addressing standing is famil-
iar:  “A  plaintiff  must  allege  personal  injury  fairly  trace-
able  to  the  defendant’s  allegedly  unlawful  conduct  and 
likely  to  be  redressed  by  the  requested  relief.”    Daimler-
Chrysler,  supra,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  6)  (quoting  Allen  v. 
Wright,  468  U. S.  737,  751  (1984)  (internal  quotation
marks omitted)).  Applying that standard here, petitioners
bear  the  burden  of  alleging  an  injury  that  is  fairly  trace-
able  to  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency’s  failure  to 
promulgate  new  motor  vehicle  greenhouse  gas  emission
standards,  and  that  is  likely  to  be  redressed  by  the  pro-
spective issuance of such standards. 

Before  determining  whether  petitioners  can  meet  this 
familiar  test,  however,  the  Court  changes  the  rules.  It 
asserts  that  “States  are  not  normal  litigants  for  the  pur-
poses  of  invoking  federal  jurisdiction,”  and  that  given
“Massachusetts’  stake  in  protecting  its  quasi-sovereign
interests,  the  Commonwealth  is  entitled  to  special  solici-
tude in our standing analysis.”  Ante, at 15, 17 (emphasis 
added).