The nation's premier environmental law withstood a major industry challenge Tuesday as the Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air-quality standards under the Clean Air Act.
The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards.
The American Lung Association called the ruling "a victory for the Clean Air Act and for the health of the American people."
The Clean Air Act became law in 1970, and the challenge by industry groups was viewed as the most significant environmental case before the Supreme Court in years.
The justices rejected industry arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997.
Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules and ordered the agency to come up with a more "reasonable" interpretation of the law.
Edward Warren, the lawyer for industry groups that challenged the law, said they retain a right to challenge the ozone and soot standards in a lower court under traditional legal rules. "There's a good chance that both of these standards will fall," he said.
The American Trucking Associations, leader of the industry group, said it was "clearly disappointed" by the ruling. It said its goal in the case was "to obtain clear, understandable legal standards to promote clean air in a sensible fashion."
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman said the decision was "a solid endorsement of EPA's efforts to protect the health of millions of Americans from the dangers of air pollution." She gave no indication of what EPA might do to implement the tougher standards, which had been withdrawn to await a ruling from the Supreme Court.
Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust environmental advocacy group, called the decision a "huge victory for breathers."
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court that the clean-air law "unambiguously bars cost considerations" from the process of setting air-quality standards.
The federal law, which "we interpret as requiring the EPA to set air quality standards at the level that is 'requisite' -- that is, not lower or higher than is necessary -- to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, fits comfortably within the scope of discretion permitted by our precedent," Scalia wrote.
All nine justices agreed on the result of the ruling, though sometimes for different reasons.
<
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
CA Is Burning said:
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.