An Analysis of Massachusetts v. EPA (Case Study Sample)

An Analysis of Massachusetts v. EPA using the IRAC Method
Name
Date
Issue
Massachusetts v. EPA had three issues. The first one was whether the petitioners had a right to sue EPA in a federal court for failing to set standards to control carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles. In other words, the court had to determine whether the petitioners had standing. The second issue was the status of carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the 1963 Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court recognized that it could not force the EPA to regulate something that fell outside of its mandate. It had to determine whether the law required it to set standards for carbon dioxide emissions. The third issue was whether the EPA could decline to regulate the emission of particular pollutants that fell within its mandate. The court had to establish if EPA could have grounds to decide not to issue emission standards when it came to these substances.
Rule
Federal courts exercise the authority granted to them through Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This article established the Supreme Court while giving Congress the power to establish other federal courts. These courts cannot determine matters that fall outside of the authority granted to them under this article. Three requirements are necessary for standing under Article III of the US constitution namely factual injury, causation, and the likelihood of redress (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife 560). The petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA have to prove that they meet these requirements before a federal court can hear their claim. The second applicable rule, in this case, refers to the definition of a pollutant. §7521 gave EPA the power to prescribe standards that would limit the emission of air pollutants from new motor vehicles. §7602 defined what an air pollutant is. EPA could only regulate substances defined as air pollutants. The third rule was that EPA could avoid promulgating regulations under two conditions. One was if it determined that the substances in question did not contribute to climate change. The second one was if it offered some reasonable explanation detailing why it cannot exercise its discretion (Massachusetts v EPA 5).