Massachusetts versus EPA Case Study

1. Analyze the EPA's actions in this case through the lens of Justice Scalia's comments in the Printz decision, excerpted in this chapter.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Justice Scalia’s opinion was supported by justices Alito, Thomas, and the chief justice Roberts. Scalia expresses skepticism over EPA’s interpretation of the agency’s mandate over air pollution issues (Manuel et al., 2016). He postulates that since greenhouse gasses are not limited to a given part of the atmosphere that is near the earth’s surface, EPA has the discretion of deciding on their responsibility to regulate them while taking into consideration the intervention of the congress. According to Scalia, EPA’s distinction is not supported in the statutory text, which uses the phrase “ambient air” to mean any chemical or physical material released to the air regardless of the layers of the atmosphere. Therefore, Justice Scalia refers the case to "Chevron deference" and finds the agency exempted from being obligated to take responsibility for the regulation of greenhouse gases.

2. Judge David Tatel, quoted at different points in this chapter, has commented, "When reading a set of briefs or listening to oral arguments, I sometimes wonder whether the agency consulted its lawyers only after it found itself in court." Consider Dimock's guideline for "finding the law." Presumably, the EPA had skilled attorneys during the different administrations described in this case. Was the difficulty in the case "finding the law"? Or was it something else?

The difficulty demonstrated, in this case, was not all about finding the law, but the tensions associated with the law. EPA has misspelled its authority given by the Clean Air Act (CAA). At the same time, the regulation of greenhouse gases could have a great economic impact on the firms and industries releasing these gases (Payne & Rosenbaum, 2007). Personal interests conflicted with the law.

3. Which of the different sources of law described in this chapter are evident in this case (including those directly involved in the lawsuits)?

There are many sources of law that are discussed in this chapter. However, in this case, study, there are two sources of law that can be described. The first source is administrative law. This source is achieved through organizations that are created by the government to regulate individual activities. The Environmental Policy Agency (EPA) was created under the clean air act of 1970 to control air pollution (Driesen & Richard, 2020). The agency has the mandate to carry out particular roles, and their decisions are to be respected. International law is also evident in this case study the international center for technology and assessment (ICTA) was a global body that filed a petition against the decisions of EPA when their case has dismissed the city of Massachusetts took to the high court to question the decisions of the lower courts. Although EPA condemned their step of moving to a higher court, the case on greenhouse gases was herd again, and a new judgment passed.

4. What does accountability mean in the context of this case? Which accountability institutions are evident?

Accountability in this case study precisely refers to the mandate of an individual, organization, or agency to account for its actions, take responsibility, and disclose the results to the public in a transparent manner. The act of being blameless and transparent for your actions is accountability. Direct democracy and institutions of transparency are some of the accountability institutions that are evident in the EPA case study. Direct democracy is being practiced as bodies and individuals got the right to recall and question the court decisions and ask for clarification when the need arises. The ICTA and the state of Massachusetts took to the court to review and criticize the duties of EPA in controlling greenhouse gases (GHGs). Clarification was given, and results were explained. The court acts as the main institution for transparency in this case study. Its actions are justified and open to the public, which leaves the court blameless. The court either never tires to listen to different petitions to rule with justice.

5. Discuss what it means for an EPA public manager to "think institutionally" concerning the issues raised in this case.

Thinking institutionally, in this case, means that the EPA manager should follow the court ruling about the cases presented. The manager should avoid expressive individualism and show great respect to the rule of law. The rule of law should act as the main principle of responsible and accountable administration (Driesen & Richard, 2020). The EPA manager should therefore be able to listen to both arguments by scientists and environmentalists and not focus on the interests of his agency. He should take into consideration the court ruling and follow the specifications given by the court.

6. What are the tensions between technical rationality and political rationality evident in this case?

In the case of EPA versus Massachusetts, there exists a tension between technical rationality and political rationality (De Saillan, 2007). When public managers use the power instilled in them to make decisions, then they become accountable to technical rationality as compared to political rationality. Technical rationality deals with what people see and feel about issues affecting them. The people's issues are measurable while in political rationality, the bodies that are given executive power to decide on the decisions of issues affecting people

In this case study, there is an antagonism between technical and political rationality. Scientific evidence had already urged that the increased global warming was due to an increase in greenhouse gases. Firms and industries dealing with the emissions of greenhouse gases argued the contrary, and pressure mounted on the EPA to use its authority under C.A.A to control the emission of carbon monoxide to the air (De Saillan, 2007). According to De Saillan (2007), this issue was controversial as in 1998, judge Jonathan Cannon ruled in favor of EPA by arguing that there was no evidence that Carbon monoxide was harmful to the environment. This tension continued when ICTA submitted a petition that compelled EPA to control greenhouse gases. The issue continued further until the state of Massachusetts went to the Supreme Court, and that is when EPA was commanded to regulate greenhouse gases. This scenario is evidence of political and technical rationality in this case.

References

De Saillan, C. (2007). United States Supreme Court rules EPA must take action on greenhouse gas emissions: Massachusetts v. EPA. Natural Resources Journal, 47(4), 793-814. www.jstor.org/stable/24889536

Driesen, D. M. & Richard J. L. (2020). The rule of five: making climate history at the Supreme Court. J Environ Stud Sci 10, 362–363. doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00622-9

Manuel, K. M. Murrill, B. J. & Nolan, A. (2016). Justice Antonin Scalia: His Jurisprudence and His Impact on the Court. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. pp. 1-71. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc847755/

Payne, P. W. Jr, & Rosenbaum, S. (2007). Massachusetts et al. v Environmental Protection Agency: Implications for public health policy and practice. Public health reports (Washington, D.C. 1974), 122(6), 817–819. doi.org/10.1177/003335490712200614