Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 57

4 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

gas] emission sources face different technological and 
financial challenges in reducing emissions.  A sensible 
regulatory  scheme  would  require  that  all  significant 
sources  and  sinks  of  [greenhouse  gas]  emissions  be
considered in deciding how best to achieve any needed 
emission reductions. 

“Unilateral EPA regulation of motor vehicle [green-
house  gas]  emissions  could  also  weaken  U. S.  efforts 
to  persuade  developing  countries  to  reduce  the 
[greenhouse  gas]  intensity  of  their  economies.  Con-
sidering the large populations and growing economies
of  some  developing  countries,  increases  in  their
[greenhouse  gas]  emissions  could  quickly  overwhelm 
the  effects  of  [greenhouse  gas]  reduction  measures  in
developed  countries.  Any  potential  benefit  of  EPA 
regulation could be lost to the extent other nations de-
cided  to  let  their  emissions  significantly  increase  in 
view  of  U. S.  emissions  reductions.    Unavoidably,  cli-
mate  change  raises  important  foreign  policy  issues, 
and it is the President’s prerogative to address them.” 
68 Fed. Reg. 52929–52931 (footnote omitted). 

The  Court  dismisses  this  analysis  as  “rest[ing]  on  rea-
soning  divorced  from  the  statutory  text.”    Ante,  at  30. 
“While  the  statute  does  condition  the  exercise  of  EPA’s 
authority  on  its  formation  of  a  ‘judgment,’  . . .  that  judg-
ment must relate to whether an air pollutant ‘cause[s], or
contribute[s]  to,  air  pollution  which  may  reasonably  be
anticipated  to  endanger  public  health  or  welfare.’ ”    Ibid. 
True  but  irrelevant.  When  the  Administrator  makes  a 
judgment  whether  to  regulate  greenhouse  gases,  that
judgment  must  relate  to  whether  they  are  air  pollutants
that  “cause,  or  contribute  to,  air  pollution  which  may
reasonably  be  anticipated  to  endanger  public  health  or 
welfare.”  42  U. S. C.  §7521(a)(1).    But  the  statute  says 
nothing at all about the reasons for which the Administra-