From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Supreme Court
573 U.S. ___ (2014)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) established regulations for greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA determined that these regulations automatically triggered the Clean Air Act (Act) permitting requirement for stationary sources that emitted greenhouse gases. The Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g), defined air pollutants as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents . . . which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the United States Supreme Court determined that the Act-wide definition of air pollutant included greenhouse gases because the definition was so broad. However, while the Act-wide definition was broad, the EPA consistently interpreted the term “air pollutant” much more narrowly when required by the context. In particular, the EPA determined that air pollutants, in the context of the Act’s permitting requirement, were limited to regulated air pollutants. The Utility Air Regulatory Group and others (plaintiffs) challenged the EPA’s determination its greenhouse-gas emissions regulations automatically triggered the Act’s permitting requirement. The EPA acknowledged that under its determination, administrative and regulatory costs for both the industry and the government would increase an untenable amount due to the required permitting of so many previously unregulated sources. Specifically, the EPA estimated that the number of sources required to obtain permits would increase from under 15,000 to over 6 million. The court of appeals held that because of the Massachusetts holding that greenhouse gases were air pollutants under the Act-wide definition, and because the Act required permitting for all major sources of air pollutants, the Act required permitting for all major sources that emitted greenhouse gases. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.