John Roberts on Energy & Oil
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants
In his dissent in the 2007 landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA -- in which the majority held that states could sue EPA for climate harms and that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the
Clean Air Act -- Roberts said he would have dismissed the challengers' claims. "Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem,"
Roberts wrote. "Nor does it render petitioners without recourse. This Court's standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at
issue here 'is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive,' not the federal courts."
Source: GreenWire E&E News on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
, Nov 3, 2021
Public committees need not disclose documents
Roberts joined the court’s decision in NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:
This appeal presented the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) applied to a committee the Department of Energy formed to provide
it with advice. The Committee consisted of federal employees and contractors who manage and operate Department-owned laboratories. The district court held that FACA applied to the committee and that the Department had failed to comply with FACA’s
requirements to disclose committee documents.
On Nov. 24, 2003, after the case had been argued, the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, stating that “Department of Energy Project Review Groups are not subject to FACA.”
The new legislation had the effect of exempting Department of Energy committees, as the NRDC concedes.
We therefore remand the case to the district court for the purpose of altering its judgment.
Source: FindLaw case 02-5387, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
, Jan 2, 2004
Ok to keep Cheney’s energy task force secret
Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court’s 5-3 denial of a petition filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney’s energy task force.
This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President’s task force had violated federal law by not making its records public.
The court’s ruling marked “the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public.” At the Administration’s urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.
Source: People for the American Way: Independent Judiciary report
, Sep 12, 2003
Clean Air Act displaced federal common law on CO2 emissions.
Justice Roberts joined the Court's decision on AMERICAN ELECTRIC v. CONNECTICUT on Jun 20, 2011:
Joined by the courts into one suit, eight states, New York City, and three nonprofit land trusts filed actions against five major electric power companies claiming their carbon dioxide discharges, by contributing to global warming, have interfered with public rights in violation of federal common law, or of state tort law.
HELD: Delivered by GINSBURG, joined by ROBERTS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER & KAGANSince four members of the Court hold that at least some of the plaintiffs have standing, though four others would find there is not standing, the Court will address the merits. Though a federal common law regarding air pollution has developed where once there was none, the passage by Congress of the Clean Air Act and the agreement of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions have occupied this field of law and have displaced the federal common law. The fact that the EPA has not yet issued rules does not allow the Court to issue decisions under the
federal common law that are binding until the EPA does act, since Congress has shown its intent to have the EPA make these decisions. The process the Clean Air Act sets out is that the EPA, using its expertise, shall issue in the first instance regulations. Parties dissatisfied with those regulations may seek review of the EPA's actions in the US Court of Appeals. The possibility of state law claims for pollution will depend upon the preemptive effect of the Clean Air Act. As the preemption issue was not briefed for this Court, the state law claims are remanded for further consideration by the lower courts.
CONCURRED: ALITO concurs; joined by THOMASAssuming for the purpose of this decision that this Court in Massachusetts v. EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act correctly, this Court's analysis of the displacement of federal common law by Congressional enactment is also correct.
Sotomayor recused herself.
Source: Supreme Court case 11-AE-CT argued on Apr 19, 2011
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022