Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 54

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

1 

SCALIA, 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]

 JUSTICE  SCALIA,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE, 

JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 

I  join  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s  opinion  in  full,  and  would 
hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case 
because  petitioners  lack  standing.    The  Court  having 
decided  otherwise,  it  is  appropriate  for  me  to  note  my
dissent on the merits. 

I 

A 

The  provision  of  law  at  the  heart  of  this  case  is 
§202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which provides that
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)  “shall  by  regulation  prescribe  . . .  standards  appli-
cable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or 
classes  of  new  motor  vehicles  or  new  motor  vehicle  en-
gines,  which  in  his  judgment  cause,  or  contribute  to,  air 
pollution  which  may  reasonably  be  anticipated  to  endan-
ger  public  health  or  welfare.”    42  U. S. C.  §7521(a)(1) 
(emphasis  added).    As  the  Court  recognizes,  the  statute
“condition[s] the exercise of EPA’s authority on its forma-
tion of a ‘judgment.’ ”  Ante, at 30.  There is no dispute that
the  Administrator  has  made  no  such  judgment  in  this 
case.  See ante, at 32 (“We need not and do not reach the
question  whether  on  remand  EPA  must  make  an  endan-