Michigan v. EPA
| Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 25, 2015 Decided June 29, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Michigan, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (No. 14-46); Utility Air Regulatory Group, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (No. 14-47); National Mining Association, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (No. 14-49) |
| Docket no. | 14-46 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. 743 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2699; 192 L. Ed. 2d 674 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| The Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when it makes a "finding" that it is "necessary and appropriate" to issue a regulation (in this case, for power plants under the Clean Air Act). | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| Clean Air Act | |
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.
Writing for a 5–4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the EPA must consider costs and that it interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it determined that it did not need to consider costs when it issued a "finding" that it was "necessary and appropriate" to regulate.
Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency praised the Court's decision, while other commentators criticized Justice Scalia's decision to ignore health impacts in his opinion. Some commentators like Andrew M. Grossmann from the Cato Institute suggested that the decision may derail President Barack Obama's climate change agenda entirely.