Justices Divided Over Greenhouse Gas Regulations

, The National Law Journal


U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared to be in the market for a compromise on Monday in a high-stakes dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisAdvance® Here

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisAdvance® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisAdvance® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisAdvance® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Legaltech News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisAdvance® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • not available

    Re comment on CO2 as pollutant. Whether CO2 is an essential ingredient of life is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether excess emissions from non-natural sources (those we can control) are harmful. Water is also an essential ingredient of life, but too much can drown you.

  • not available

    Since when is the Court obligated to seek compromise? I thought their purpose was to interpret the Constitution and uphold it. I concur with the comment, below as well.

  • not available

    And all based on the misbegotten notion that CO2 is a "pollutant," raher than what it really is--an essential ingredient of life on earth.

  • not available

    And all this because globally averaged temperatures rose one-third of a degree Celsius from 1978-1997, and then levelled off since 1997. The greatest scientific fraud in history, propelled by 100 billion in federal research grants. A cause only a statist liberal could love.

  • not available


Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202644317874

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.