WhatFinger

EPW Policy Brief: In other words, EPA was not forced by the Supreme Court to make an endangerment finding

What the Supreme Court said on the EPA


Link to Inhofe EPW Press Blog It was the spark that caused the fire: In 1999, 19 organizations, led by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from mobile sources under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The so-called ICTA petition was denied in 2003 by the Bush EPA (via the Fabricant memo), and the inevitable litigation parade ensued. Several states and environmental groups joined ICTA, and Massachusetts became the lead plaintiff. The case went to the DC Circuit, and in a 2 to 1 decision, the court in Massachusetts v. EPA upheld EPA's decision. A writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court sided with Massachusetts, and the rest was history.
Read Full Article...

Welcome to CFP’s Comment Section!

The Comment section of online publications is the new front in the ongoing Cancel Culture Battle.

Big Tech and Big Media are gunning for the Conservative Voice—through their Comment Sections.

Canada Free Press wishes to stay in the fight, and we want our fans, followers, commenters there with us.

We ask only that commenters keep it civil, keep it clean.

Thank You for your patience and for staying aboard the CFP ‘Mother Ship’.

READ OUR Commenting Policy


CFP Comments


Comments


Support Canada Free Press

Donate


Recommended by Canada Free Press


Subscribe

Sponsored