After an unnecessarily long summary of the Court’s Decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, you should all be firmiliar with the arguments in the case. The blawgosphere has gone into convulsions over the ruling, with conservative reactions ranging from a newfound fear of global dehydration to cries of judicial activism. Liberal blawgs have very little to be upset about.
It is not surprising that the more liberal blawgs have hailed this decision as a landmark case in the fight to protect the environment. Conservative blawgs have called this case a simple test of the standings clause and largely find that the Majority butchered that clause.
I could include my own analysis of this case, but it has been beaten to death by the rest of the blogosphere, so I’ll save some time and comment on some other pending cases a little later. OpinioJuris has a very interesting peice on the Court’s foreign policy argument:
But in the end I’m not sure that the EPA is precluded from factoring foreign relations concerns into any future regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Foreign relations concerns may not be a factor in whether to regulate, but they can be in determining how to regulate.