Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 55

2 

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

germent  finding”);  68  Fed.  52929  (2003)  (“[N]o  Adminis-
trator has made a finding under any of the CAA’s regula-
tory  provisions  that  CO2  meets  the  applicable  statutory 
criteria for regulation”).

The  question  thus  arises:  Does  anything  require  the 
Administrator  to  make  a  “judgment”  whenever  a  petition
for rulemaking is filed?  Without citation of the statute or 
any  other  authority,  the  Court  says  yes.    Why  is  that  so?
When  Congress  wishes  to  make  private  action  force  an 
agency’s  hand,  it  knows  how  to  do  so.    See,  e.g.,  Brock  v. 
Pierce  County,  476  U. S.  253,  254–255  (1986)  (discussing 
the  Comprehensive  Employment  and  Training  Act 
(CETA), 92 Stat. 1926, 29 U. S. C. §816(b) (1976 ed., Supp. 
V),  which  “provide[d]  that  the  Secretary  of  Labor  ‘shall’ 
issue  a  final  determination  as  to  the  misuse  of  CETA 
funds by a grant recipient within 120 days after receiving 
a complaint alleging such misuse”).  Where does the CAA 
say  that  the  EPA  Administrator  is  required  to  come  to  a
decision  on  this  question  whenever  a  rulemaking  petition
is  filed?  The  Court  points  to  no  such  provision  because
none exists. 

Instead,  the  Court  invents  a  multiple-choice  question 
that the EPA Administrator must answer when a petition 
for  rulemaking  is  filed.  The  Administrator  must  exercise 
his judgment in one of three ways: (a) by concluding that 
the  pollutant  does  cause,  or  contribute  to,  air  pollution
that  endangers  public  welfare  (in  which  case  EPA  is  re-
quired  to  regulate);  (b)  by  concluding  that  the  pollutant 
does  not  cause,  or  contribute  to,  air  pollution  that  endan-
gers  public  welfare  (in  which  case  EPA  is  not  required  to 
regulate);  or  (c)  by  “provid[ing]  some  reasonable  explana-
tion  as  to why  it  cannot  or  will not  exercise  its  discretion
to  determine  whether”  greenhouse  gases  endanger  public
welfare, ante, at 30, (in which case EPA is not required to 
regulate).

I  am  willing  to  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that