Eric Boyd Quoted in E-commerce Times/TechNewsWorld
"SC Emissions Ruling Spurs Fast and Furious Reactions"

The article "SC Emissions Ruling Spurs Fast and Furious Reactions" in the April 4 issue of E-commerce Times on the the implications and fallout from the April 2 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on EPA emissions notes: "The ink was barely dry on the U.S. Supreme Court's groundbreaking ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency when wheels began turning in response. One of the first actions spawned by the decision is the EPA's announcement that California may proceed to enforce its strict tailpipe emissions standards.  It didn't take long for the U.S. EPA to react to the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling.  The agency announced that California can move forward with its plans to reduce tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles -- in effect, setting the nation's first standards in this area. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the EPA had argued that the authority to set fuel economy standards belonged solely to the U.S. Department of Transportation.  Indeed, ramifications of the Supreme Court decision will extend far beyond the parties closest to the case. Yes, environmentalists received a major boost with the ruling, and true, the Bush administration is steaming over the rebuff to its approach to global warming."

"The states are obvious winners, as they now have far greater latitude to set their own emissions standards. However, this case also will give them "standing" -- that is, the right to take certain issues to court -- in other matters.  "A majority of the Supreme Court found that the matter was properly before the court, relying on the standing of Massachusetts with respect to the impact global warming plays on the loss of its coastal land," Eric E. Boyd, partner in Seyfarth Shaw's environmental, safety and toxic torts practice group, stated.  "This means the states are big winners on the standing issue. The court essentially came out with a new standing doctrine," he said.  Justice Stevens was able to pull together a 5-to-4 majority, Boyd continued, only because he was able to get Justice Kennedy on board by making the distinction between states and other complainants with respect to standing.  "If you read Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, you can see it is a big issue for him," Boyd said. "He sees it as a big rollback."  Essentially, the threshold for standing is now lower for states than for other complainants as a consequence of the ruling, he said.