[the_Watchman]

Did the Supreme Court make a determination that they “should” treat CO2 as a pollutant or that they “could” treat CO2 as a pollutant. My belief is that the Supreme Court ruled that the determination was left up to the E.P.A. as to the definition of “pollutant”. If this had not been the case, then a court would have had to hold hearings where experts would have testified. I do not believe this happened.

[Solson]

They ruled the Clean Air Act does give the EPA the authority to regulate GHG's as pollutants. The majority also ruled GHG's fit into the EPA's "capacious definition of a pollutant."

It was the EPA who then, under Obama's appointees came out with the endangerment finding, which is the catalyst to treat GHG's as dangerous to our health. The endangerment finding is what triggers the Clean Air Act regulations which is where it's at currently.

It's interesting to read Scalia's and Roberts' dissents. Once again, I believe Kennedy was the swing vote.