The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday morning to reassess the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions.. The justices will specifically be looking at the change of stipulations the EPA made after the Massachusetts v. EPA 2007 court decision that allowed the EPA to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Industry trade groups and Republican-led states will present their case as to why new requirements for power plants, factories and other stationary sources of pollution, which the EPA added after the original Clean Air Act ruling, are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case in 2014, and reach a ruling by the end of the current term.
The EPA is creating "the costliest, farthest-reaching and most intrusive regulatory apparatus in the history of the American administrative state," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated in the appeal, that was also endorsed by other groups and organizations, including the state of Alaska and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Industries and states supporting this court review say that the EPA has taken liberties to rewrite the law that was originally approved by the Supreme Court, and make impossible requirements for businesses to adhere.
The American Chemistry Council argued that the EPA has "relied on the costs and absurdities created by its own interpretation of the Clean Air Act to grant itself a continuing license to create and revise the statutory scheme without regard to even the clearest congressional directives."
The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, saying that the previous ruling had already given the EPA the latitude to change the regulations as they saw fit.
The opponents' "policy concerns with the implementation of an intentionally broad and precautionary statutory scheme are properly addressed to Congress," U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the administration's courtroom lawyer, told Bloomberg.