Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

28 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

conflict  with  any  thoughtful  regulatory  effort;  they  com-
plement it.29
  EPA’s  reliance  on  Brown  &  Williamson  Tobacco  Corp., 
529  U. S.  120,  is  similarly  misplaced.    In  holding  that 
tobacco  products  are  not  “drugs”  or  “devices”  subject  to
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation pursuant 
to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), see 529 U. S., 
at  133,  we  found  critical  at  least  two  considerations  that 
have no counterpart in this case. 

First, we thought it unlikely that Congress meant to ban
tobacco  products,  which  the  FDCA  would  have  required
had  such  products  been  classified  as  “drugs”  or  “devices.” 
Id., at 135–137.  Here, in contrast, EPA jurisdiction would 
lead to no such extreme measures.  EPA would only regu-
late emissions, and even then, it would have to delay any 
action  “to  permit  the  development  and  application  of  the 
requisite  technology,  giving  appropriate  consideration  to 
the cost of compliance,” §7521(a)(2).  However much a ban 
on  tobacco  products  clashed  with  the  “common  sense” 
intuition  that  Congress  never  meant  to  remove  those 
products from circulation, Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., 
at 133, there is nothing counterintuitive to the notion that
EPA  can  curtail  the  emission  of  substances  that  are  put-
ting the global climate out of kilter. 
  Second, in Brown & Williamson we pointed to an unbro-
ken  series  of  congressional  enactments  that  made  sense 
only  if  adopted  “against  the  backdrop  of  the  FDA’s  consis-
tent and repeated statements that it lacked authority under 
the FDCA to regulate tobacco.”  Id., at 144.  We can point to 
no  such  enactments  here:  EPA  has  not  identified  any  con-
gressional action that conflicts in any way with the regula-

—————— 

29 We  are  moreover  puzzled  by  EPA’s  roundabout  argument  that  be-
cause later Congresses chose to address stratospheric ozone pollution in 
a  specific  legislative  provision,  it  somehow  follows  that  greenhouse 
gases cannot be air pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.