Massachusetts v. EPA

Massachusetts v. EPA

Iri	legal case (en) decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (en)
Ranar wallafa	2 ga Afirilu, 2007
Ƙasa	Tarayyar Amurka
Applies to jurisdiction (en)	Tarayyar Amurka
Plaintiff (en)	Massachusetts
Court (en)	Babban kotun Koli na Amurka
Chronology (en)
29 Nuwamba, 2006	Oral argument (en)

Massachusetts v. Hukumar Kare Muhalli, 549 US 497 (2007), shari'ar Kotun Koli ce ta 5-4 ta Amurka inda Massachusetts, tare da wasu jihohi goma sha ɗaya da birane da yawa na Amurka, wanda James Milkey ya wakilta, suka gabatar da kara a kan Hukumar Kare Muhallin (EPA) wanda Gregory G. Garre ya wakilta don tilasta hukumar tarayya ta tsara fitar da carbon dioxide da sauran iskar gas (GHGs) waɗanda ke gurɓata muhalli kuma suna taimakawa ga Canjin yanayi.

A karkashin doka Tsabtace Ruwa, Massachusetts ta yi jayayya cewa doka ta buƙaci Hukumar Kare Muhalli don tsara "duk wani gurbataccen iska" wanda zai iya "haɗari lafiyar jama'a ko jin dadin". EPA ta musanta karar, tana mai cewa dokar tarayya ba ta ba da izini ga hukumar ta tsara hayakin hayaki.

Kotun ta yanke hukunci a madadin masu shigar da kara, ta gano cewa iskar gas din ta cancanci gurɓata iska. Wannan ya haifar da ka'idojin Amurka na iskar gas a karkashin Dokar Tsabtace Ruwa.

Tarihi

Sashe na 202 (a) (1) na Dokar Tsabtace Ruwa (CAA), 42 USC. § 7521 (a) (1), yana buƙatar Mai Gudanar da Hukumar Kare Muhalli ya saita ka'idojin fitarwa ga "duk wani gurɓataccen iska" daga motoci ko injunan motoci "wanda a cikin hukuncinsa ya haifar da [s], ko ba da gudummawa ga, gurɓata iska wanda za'a iya tsammanin zai iya haɗari ga lafiyar jama'a ko jin dadin jama'a"

1. EPA ba ta da iko a ƙarƙashin CAA don tsara carbon dioxide da sauran GHGs don dalilai na Canjin yanayi.
2. Ko da EPA tana da irin wannan iko, za ta ƙi saita ka'idodin fitar da GHG ga motoci.

Jam'iyyun

Masu shigar da kara sun kasance jihohin California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont da Washington, Birnin New York, Baltimore, da Washington, DC, yankin Samoa ta Amurka, da kuma kungiyoyin Cibiyar Nazarin Biology, Cibiyar Tsaro ta Abinci, Gidauniyar Shari'a, Masu ba da Muhalli, Abokan Duniya, Cibiyar Nazaren Fasaha ta Kasa, Ƙungiyar Tsaro ta Jama'a, Ƙungiyar Masana'a ta Amurka. James Milkey na Ofishin Babban Lauyan Massachusetts ya wakilci masu shigar da kara a cikin muhawara ta baki a gaban Kotun Koli ta Amurka.

Respondents were the Environmental Protection Agency, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers Association, Engine Manufacturers Association, Truck Manufacturers Association, CO2 Litigation Group, Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the states of Michigan, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah.

Kotun daukaka kara ta Amurka ta Gundumar Columbia ta yanke shawarar a ranar 13 ga Satumba, 2005, don tabbatar da shawarar EPA. Koyaya, alƙalai masu daukaka kara sun kasance da bambanci sosai a cikin tunanin su na isa ga mafi rinjaye.

Ƙananan kotun ta rabu sosai game da ko masu shigar da kara sun "tsaye", rauni na mutum wanda ke haifar da haƙƙin da'awar matakin gyara daga gwamnati ta hanyar kotuna (watau, maimakon neman mataki mai kyau ta hanyar matsawa don dokokin tallafi). Ɗaya daga cikin alƙalai uku bai sami matsayi ba yayin da na biyu daga cikin uku ya jinkirta yanke shawara na gaskiya don duk wani shari'a na gaba. Kodayake ta ba da takardar shaidar, Kotun Koli na iya sake duba batun tsayawa don kauce wa yanke shawara mai wuya kuma ta watsar da karar saboda rashin matsayi. Koyaya, da zarar an ba da takardar shaidar, irin wannan canji yana da wuya.

Bayar da takaddun shaida

A ranar 26 ga Yuni, 2006, Kotun Koli ta ba da takardar shaidar.

Tambayoyi

1. Ko masu shigar da kara suna da matsayi.
2. Ko carbon dioxide shine "mai gurɓata iska" wanda ke haifar da " gurɓataccen iska" kamar yadda CAA ta bayyana. Idan carbon dioxide ba gurɓataccen iska ba ne wanda ke haifar da gurɓata iska, to EPA ba ta da iko a ƙarƙashin CAA don daidaita hayakin carbon dioxide. Idan CAA ta mallaki carbon dioxide, Mai Gudanar da EPA na iya yanke shawarar kada ya tsara carbon dioxide, amma kawai ya dace da sharuddan CAA.
3. Ko mai gudanarwa na EPA na iya ƙin bayar da ka'idojin fitarwa ga motoci bisa la'akari da manufofi da ba a lissafa su ba a sashi na 202 (a) (1).

Tattaunawar

Masu shigar da kara sun yi jayayya cewa ma'anar a cikin CAA tana da faɗi sosai cewa dole ne a ƙidaya carbon dioxide a matsayin mai gurɓata iska. Sun yi iƙirarin cewa kalmar dokar ce ke sarrafa tambayar, don haka muhawara ta gaskiya ba ta da mahimmanci. Bugu da ƙari, masu shigar da kara sun gabatar da shaidar kimiyya mai mahimmanci cewa guba na carbon dioxide ya haifar da babban taro kuma wannan haifar da dumama ta duniya yana canza iskar zuwa gurbatawa.

Idan ma'anar doka ta CAA ta haɗa da carbon dioxide, to kotunan Tarayya ba za su sami damar kaiwa ga wani ƙarshe ba. Ma'anar da ke cikin dokar, ba shaidar ko ra'ayi ba, za ta sarrafa sakamakon.

Ma'anar dokar gurɓataccen iska ta ƙunshi "duk wani wakili na gurɓata iska ko haɗuwa da irin waɗannan wakilai, gami da kowane abu na zahiri, sinadarai, halittu, rediyo ... abu ko abu wanda aka fitar a cikin ko in ba haka ba ya shiga cikin iska, ..." Dukkan bangarorin biyu sun yarda cewa da iskar gas na gurɓaya suna cikin rabi na biyu. Masu shigar da kara sun yi jayayya cewa amfani da 'ciki har da' ta atomatik yana nufin iskar gas mai ɗumi na cikin rukuni na farko, 'duk wani wakili na gurɓata iska' wanda ba a bayyana shi daban ba. EPA ta jaddada cewa wannan ba daidai ba ne saboda 'Duk wani mota na Amurka, gami da manyan motoci da ƙananan motoci, ... ' ba yana nufin cewa manyan motocin kasashen waje motocin Amurka ne.

Masu shigar da kara sun tabbatar da cewa shawarar da mai gudanarwa na EPA ya yanke na kada ya tsara carbon dioxide da sauran iskar gas din sun keta ka'idojin CAA. Don haka, Kotun Koli ta kuma yi la'akari da ko dalilan da EPA ta bayar sun kasance dalilai masu inganci a cikin dokar CAA don Mai Gudanar da EPA ya yanke shawarar kada ya tsara carbon dioxide. EPA ta yi jayayya cewa Mai Gudanarwa yana da hankali a ƙarƙashin CAA don yanke shawarar kada a tsara shi.

Mai gudanarwa na EPA ya yi jayayya cewa ana riga an dauki wasu matakai don kara yawan amfani da man fetur na motoci kuma (kamar na 2003) binciken kimiyya har yanzu yana gudana. Don haka, Mai Gudanar da EPA ya yanke shawarar kada ya tsara "a wannan lokacin".

Wannan shari'ar ta zama sananne saboda yaduwar fahimta cewa gaskiyar ko ƙarya game da ka'idodin dumamar duniya za a yanke hukunci ta kotuna. Duk da yake wannan na iya faruwa a cikin shari'o'i na gaba, tambayoyin da ke gaban Kotun Koli ta Amurka a nan sun fi ƙanƙanta, kuma suna da doka.

Ɗaya daga cikin dalilan da suka sa Mai Gudanar da EPA ya ki tsara carbon dioxide shine rashin tabbas game da ko hayakin carbon dioxide da mutum ya haifar da dumamar duniya. Wannan ya ja hankalin mutane sosai ga lamarin. Koyaya, Kotun Koli kawai ta yanke shawarar ko dalilin Mai Gudanarwa shine dalilin da ya dace a cikin CAA. Kotun Koli ba ta yanke shawara a bayyane ba idan gaskiya ne ko ba gaskiya ba ne cewa hayakin carbon dioxide da mutum ya yi yana haifar da dumama a duniya, kodayake maganganun da Alkalai suka yi a lokacin jayayya ta baki na iya shafar muhawara ta jama'a.

Masu shigar da kara sun yi jayayya cewa rashin tabbas na kimiyya ba ingantaccen tushe ba ne ga Mai Gudanar da EPA don ƙin tsarawa. Tambayar da ke gaban Kotun Koli "ba ta kasance ko dalilin gaskiya ne ko ba gaskiya ba, amma ko dalili ne mai inganci ga Mai Gudanarwa kada ya tsara gurbataccen abu.