Thread by @i_love_planning

Ever wondered what's the most impactful law case regarding the government's ability to regulate carbon emissions? Don’t worry I know the answer is yes. Follow this thread and you'll learn the ins and outs of the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA 👍 #law #planning

Way before the court case in 2007 Joe Mendelson, based at a D.C. environmental non-profit wondered how the government could be motivated to regulate carbon emissions

Mendelson came up with the idea that the Clean Air Act could be an avenue to propel the EPA to regulate carbon emissions coming from vehicles #bigbrain #sosmart

Mendelsons idea grew and he eventually was asked to meet with the Clinton administration to strategize on what power the Clean Air Act could have

Sadly, before the plan could be implemented Bush was inaugurated and the plan for using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions was scraped 😞😞😞😞

Thankfully in a not so distant universe Jim Milkey, a then lawyer in the Massachusetts Attorney General's office started working with some other lawyers on an argument for limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses on a federal level. unrelated at all to Mendelson #coincidence

Before you can say federal regulation Milkey and Mendelson combined efforts with Lisa Heinzerling, professor of law at Georgetown University

Though the petition assembled by the three was quickly shot down by the EPA #lame #notcool

The EPA cited multiple reasons for saying no, including: the EPA administer did not feel greenhouse gases to be pollution under the Clean air Act & the EPA did not want to interfere with the then president’s climate strategy regarding international talks

The team didn't miss a beat and after hearing the EPAs no brought a case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alongside our valiant fighters for justice 12 states and 30 environmental organizations joined the suit #perseverance

This case actually failed. But! Thankfully we live in a country where we can take a rejection to the next higher power. So the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.#letsgoooooooooo

The court heard arguments on November 29th, 2006 and handed down their decision April 2nd 2007.💪😤😤😤😤🔥

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts!!

The supreme county ruling compels the EPA to reexamine their inaction of regulating carbon and to base their decision on “..whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.”
#finally #savethecountry #goodmove

Interestingly during the case Chief Justice Roberts dissented, saying that the group did not have ground to sue the EPA, “because the potential injuries from global warming were not concrete or particularized”🤮🤮🤮🤮

Since the 2007 ruling there has been action forward and backwards.🤔🤔🤔🤔 #hmmm

In 2013 the EPA under the Obama administration implemented a plan to regulate carbon emissions from power plants under a plan called the “Clean Power Plan.”

Though under the most recent presidential administration. Replacing the “Clean Power Plan” with the “Affordable Clean Energy Rule,” which focuses much more on technological tools of limiting pollution at individual coal-power plants. #dumb #leadforbrains

Regardless of the future of the 2007 ruling its legacy will live on in history. Continuing to shape the federal government's relationship with regulation of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants #governmentsgonnagovern

@threadreaderapp unroll