[libstripper]

Beyond its effect on federal policy, the case holds important implications for California and 10 other states that have assumed that the Clean Air Act authorizes regulations for carbon dioxide and other gases and have adopted their own stringent limits for automobile and truck emissions. The state laws, scheduled to go into effect for the 2009 model year, have been challenged in court by automakers.

A ruling by the Supreme Court could influence another case currently before the same appeals court, involving many of the same plaintiffs. They are arguing that the E.P.A. should also regulate carbon emissions from power plants.

This quote shows why the Court was wise to grant certiorari at this time. Not only were the original plaintiffs appealing the lower court's decision, but California and 10 other states were issuing CO2 regulations on the assumption that they had the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to do so. Thus, the Court is not just giving the original plaintiffs another bite at the apple; it's also going probably to rule on an ongoing legislative trend that needs to be stopped. Conservative and liberal justices would both have good reason to vote for certiorari in this case. However, given the Court's penchant for issuing confused and confusing consensus opinions, the result might be no more clear than Breyer's incomprehensible decision in the Vermont CFR case.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Not only were the original plaintiffs appealing the lower court's decision, but California and 10 other states were issuing CO2 regulations on the assumption that they had the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to do so.

Wouldn't those states have the authority to do these things on their own, subject to their own constitutions, of course?