us supreme court: 05-1120
TRANSCRIPT
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 1/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., :
Petitioners :
v. : No. 05-1120
ENVIRONMENTAL :
PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The above-entitled matter came on for oral
argument before the Supreme Court of the United States
at 10:02 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
JAMES R. MILKEY, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General,
Boston, Mass; on behalf of Petitioners.
GREGORY C. GARRE, ESQ., Deputy Solicitor General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on
behalf of Respondents.
1Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 2/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
C O N T E N T S
ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE
JAMES R. MILKEY, ESQ.
On behalf of the Petitioners 3
ORAL ARGUMENT OF
GREGORY C. GARRE, ESQ.
On behalf of the Respondents 25
REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF
JAMES R. MILKEY, ESQ.
On behalf of Petitioners 52
2Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 3/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S
(10:02 a.m.)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argument
first today in 05-1120, Massachusetts versus
Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Milkey.
ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES R. MILKEY
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
MR. MILKEY: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it
please the Court:
If I may, I'd like to frame the merits very
quickly and then turn immediately to standing. Although
the case before you arises in an important policy area,
it turns on ordinary principles of statutory
interpretation and administrative law. EPA made a
decision based on two grounds, both of which constitute
plain errors of law reviewable under any standard.
EPA's principle grounds was that it lacked authority
over the emissions of the four substances at issue, even
if they, in fact, endanger public health and welfare.
That legal conclusion fails as a matter of law.
As a fallback position, EPA declined to
consider if these substances are endangering public
health and welfare, claiming its policy approach made
more sense than the regulatory scheme encompassed in
section 1202 of the Clean Air Act. Although EPA
3Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 4/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
possesses a good deal of discretion in applying the
statutory endangerment test, it cannot rest its ruling
on impermissible grounds as it did here.
We are not asking the Court to pass judgment
on the science of climate change or to order EPA to set
emission standards. We simply want EPA to visit the
rulemaking petition based upon permissible
considerations.
And now, Your Honor, I'd like to turn to
standing. Petitioner showed a wide variety of injury in
fact, all of which are the kinds of harms the statute
was aimed at preventing. For example, our uncontested
affidavits establish that as a matter of physics, the
more greenhouse gases accumulate in the air, the more
temperatures are going to rise, ocean waters expand, and
the seas rise. And of course as the seas expand, they
rise everywhere around the world. Some areas such as
Massachusetts will be hit particularly hard because
we're also subject to a land subsidence, but that --
JUSTICE SCALIA: I thought that the standing
requires imminent harm. If you haven't been harmed
already, you have to show the harm is imminent. Is this
harm imminent?
MR. MILKEY: It is, Your Honor. We have
shown that the sea levels are already occurring from the
4Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 5/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
current amounts of greenhouse gases in the air, and that
means it is only going to get worse as the --
JUSTICE SCALIA: When? I mean, when is the
predicted cataclysm?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, it's not so much a
cataclysm as ongoing harm. The harm does not suddenly
spring up in the year 2100, it plays out continuously
over time. And even to the extent you focus on harms
that occur in the future, there's nothing conjectural
about that. Once these gases are emitted into the area,
and they stay a long time, the laws of physics take
over.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, there's a lot of
conjecture about whether -- I gather that there's
something of a consensus on warming, but not a consensus
on how much of that is attributable to human activity.
And I gather that -- what is it? Something like seven
percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions are
attributable to automobiles in the United States?
MR. MILKEY: It's actually about 6 percent,
Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: 6 percent? Thank you.
MR. MILKEY: But it's important to point out
as well, though, that in the ruling we challenge, EPA
has disavowed authority over all U.S. sources of
5Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 6/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
emissions, which constitute about 20 percent of
global --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, but that doesn't go to
the harm that you're claiming. I mean, we're talking
about the, you know, the standing issue right now. And
if you've been harmed, you've claimed harm because of
carbon dioxide emissions, right?
MR. MILKEY: Agreed, Your Honor. But my
point was that they disclaimed authority over all
sources of carbon --
JUSTICE SCALIA: I understand, but that has
nothing to do with whether you have standing. That has
to do with the merits of the case. But on the standing
point, only new cars would be affected, right? So even
the reduction of the 6 percent would take a few years,
wouldn't it?
MR. MILKEY: It would take a few years, Your
Honor, but it is a basic premise of the Clean Air Act
that vehicle fleets regularly turn over --
JUSTICE SCALIA: I understand. But it goes
to how imminent the harm is and how remediable the
imminent harm is. If, in fact, the 6 percent will only
be reduced to maybe five and a half in the next few
years, your --
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, we have shown in
6Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 7/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
the record that a 40 percent reduction in carbon dioxide
from cars is currently feasible. And since those
emissions account for --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Not in the first year.
MR. MILKEY: No, no. We agree, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean ultimately, when all
the cars currently on the roads are off and the new cars
with, you know, whatever measures you think will reduce
the carbon dioxide are on the road, then 40 percent
would be the figure.
MR. MILKEY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But whatever position
holds for motor vehicles would similarly hold for power
plants, and has there been any application to EPA with
respect to carbon dioxide in power plants?
MR. MILKEY: There has, Your Honor. In
fact, EPA has turned down a rulemaking petition to
regulate them under the new source performance standard
section of the Clean Air Act, and that is currently on
appeal in the D.C. Circuit, but it is currently stayed
pending the outcome of this case, and it just --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Do you get the
benefit of that broader allegation in establishing your
standard? In other words, if you've challenged EPA's
refusal to apply a particular level of greenhouse
7Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 8/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
regulation to a particular model of car, can you say,
well, they're following the same approach to a coal
powered -- coal fueled power plant, and so we get to
establish a broader injury? Or, aren't you limited to
the specific legal challenge you're raising here?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, I think it's
actually more direct in the sense that in the decision
we challenge here, they said greenhouse gases are not
air pollutants under any regulatory provision of the
act. So at least on --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Don't you have to
show injury from their decision here? The fact that
other people, or you presumably as well might be injured
by their decisions that you are not challenging here,
that doesn't help your standing here, does it?
MR. MILKEY: I believe it does, Your Honor,
because we cannot win that other case unless we win this
case here in terms of the authority question. And in
any event, it is important to point out that because of
the scale of the problem, relatively small percentage
deductions in global emissions can lead to real world
results.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But at the outset, you
made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement
that we need not decide about global warming in this
8Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 9/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide
the standing argument, because there's no injury if
there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing
simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived
would show that there's an injury?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this
case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I
don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on
the merits because we showed through our uncontested
affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no
evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that
the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that
climate change is occurring in --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Those affidavits
talked about the fact that if the government starts to
regulate, the technology is going to change, if the
technology changes, other governments will adopt it, and
all that, and that strikes me as sort of spitting out
conjecture on conjecture, the sort that we disapproved
of.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, although we believe
we have shown other governments will follow suit, we are
not in any sense relying on that. We can easily show
our standing without relying on that. And that's
because --
9Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 10/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same argument if the
automobile emissions were 1 percent contributors?
MR. MILKEY: It would be the same argument.
And I would add that EPA in other contexts has
determined on several occasions that a 1 percent
contribution is significant under the Clean Air Act.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How is that
consistent with our taxpayer standing cases where the
argument is that a taxpayer doesn't have standing to
challenge an illegal expenditure as a general matter
simply because his contribution, the benefit that he's
claiming is so small and so widely dispersed?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, it is different
because here there is particularized injury that we have
shown. The injury doesn't get any more particular than
states losing 200 miles of coastline, both sovereign
territory and property we actually own, to rising seas.
JUSTICE ALITO: If you look ahead, I don't
know how far imminence allows you to look ahead, but
let's say we're looking at 5 years or 10 years, what
particularized harm does the record show that
Massachusetts will, or faces an imminent threat of
suffering, that can be traceable to the reductions that
you want to produce through these regulations?
MR. MILKEY: Well, Your Honor, if I can deal
10
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 11/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
with the traceability part of that question first,
traceability is easy to show here because the extent of
our harm is caused by the overall amount of the gases in
the air. And being focused on the 20 percent of all
U.S. sources, or the 6 percent of the cars, that's still
a sizeable portion of the problem, so we know that 6 or
20 percent is there.
In terms of the particular harms, similarly
we have shown --
JUSTICE ALITO: 6 percent is the total
emissions, the total contribution from motor vehicles in
the United States, right?
MR. MILKEY: To the global carbon dioxide
emission.
JUSTICE ALITO: To the global. And so, the
reduction that you could achieve under the best of
circumstances with these regulations would be a small
portion of that, would it not?
MR. MILKEY: It would be, we have shown in
the record it would be about a two-and-a-half percent
over the time it takes to turn the fleet over. But it's
important that given the nature of the harms, even small
reductions can be significant. For example, if we're
able to save only a small fraction of the hundreds of
millions of dollars that Massachusetts parks agencies
11
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 12/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
are projected to lose, that reduction is itself
significant.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That assumes
everything else is going to remain constant, though,
right? It assumes there isn't going to be a greater
contribution of greenhouse gases from economic
development in China and other places that's going to
displace whatever marginal benefit you get here.
MR. MILKEY: Yes, Your Honor. But reducing
domestic emissions will reduce our harm, the harm we
would otherwise face regardless of what --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Not if your harm is
the alleged loss of coastline. Not necessarily. It
depends upon what happens across the globe with respect
to greenhouse emissions.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, we would still lose
coastline but we would not lose as much because these
harms are cumulative, and while reducing U.S. emissions
will not eliminate all the harm we face, it can reduce
the harm that these emissions are causing.
So it will necessarily reduce our harm and
satisfy redressibility.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean, do we know that
that's a straight line ratio, that a reduction of
two-and-a-half percent of carbon dioxide -- well, two
12
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 13/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
and a half overall would save two-and-a-half percent of
your coastline? Is that how it works? I'm not a
scientist, but I'd be surprised if it was so rigid.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, I don't believe
it's established it's necessarily a straight line. But
I want to emphasize that small vertical rises cause a
large loss of horizontal land. For example, where the
slope is less than 2 percent, which is true of much of
the Massachusetts coastline, every foot rise will create
a loss of more than 50 feet of horizontal land. And for
example, in the State of New York, the Oppenheimer
affidavit projects that New York could well lose
thousands of acres of its sovereign territory by the
year 2020. So the harm is already occurring. It is
ongoing and it will happen well into the future.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What's your
strongest case from this Court to support your standing
allegation?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, what I would say to
that is our standing here is so much more direct and
particularized than, for example, the harm this Court
found sufficient in Laidlaw, which was --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Laidlaw was a
specific citizen suit provision, wasn't it?
MR. MILKEY: It was, Your Honor.
13
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 14/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So doesn't that make
it somewhat analytically distinct from this case?
MR. MILKEY: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
Here I think the fact that the States are showing harm
not only to them in a property sense, but in their
sovereign capacity --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: What's your authority for
that? I have the same question as the Chief Justice. I
was looking at your brief for the strongest case.
Suppose there were a big landowner that owned lots of
coastline. Would he have the same standing that you do
or do you have some special standing as a State, and if
so what is the case which would demonstrate that?
MR. MILKEY: Well, Your Honor, first of all,
we agree that a large landowner would himself or herself
have --
JUSTICE SCALIA: What of a small landowner?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: No, no. I'm asking
whether you have some special standing --
MR. MILKEY: Yes --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: -- as a State and, if so,
what's the authority for that?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, first of all, I do
think we have special standing. For example, here it's
uncontested that greenhouse gases are going to make
14
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 15/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
ozone problems worse, which makes it harder for us to
comply with our existing Clean Air Act responsibilities.
And the -- in the West Virginia case, which
is a D.C. Circuit case, the Court found that that itself
provided an independent source of standing. In terms of
Supreme Court cases, the -- it's been -- for 200 years,
this Court has recognized loss of state sovereign
property as a traditional --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I don't know. 1907
was Georgia versus Tennessee Copper, and that was
pre-Massachusetts versus Mellon. That seems to me your
best case.
What about a small landowner? I asked the
question about a big landowner. Suppose you have a
small landowner and he owned a lot?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, I think if someone
is losing property because of this problem, then that
person would have standing, but we're nowhere near a de
minimis threshold here. We have shown we own property,
200 miles of coastline which we're losing, and we think
the standing is straightforward.
JUSTICE SCALIA: No, I'm not sure -- I think
our opinions have even said it, but certainly
commentators have often said it, that really the far
margin of our standing cases has been, you know, the
15
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 16/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
famous scrap case, in which the allegation was that the
added pollution from municipal incineration of municipal
waste which would -- which couldn't be transported by
rail for burial because the ICC rates were too high,
that added pollution interfered with the students' --
they were Georgetown Law students -- their hiking in the
George Washington Forest along the Blue Ridge.
That seems to me a much more immediate kind
of damage; yet that's been referred to as really the far
margin of our standing cases. You're talking not about
their being affected by ambient air but being affected
by a stratospheric effect which then has another
consequence that you allege.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, once these are
emitted the laws of physics take over, so our harm is
imminent in the sense that lighting a fuse on a bomb is
imminent harm. It may take --
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Milkey, does it make
a difference that you're not representing a group of law
students, but a number of States who are claiming that
they are disarmed from regulating and that the
regulatory responsibility has been given to the Federal
Government and the Federal Government isn't exercising
it? I thought you had a discrete claim based on the
sovereignty of States and their inability to regulate
16
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 17/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
dependent on the law Congress passed that gives that
authority to the EPA. I thought that was --
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, you are correct
that we are saying that provides us also an independent
source of our standing.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't understand
that. You have standing whenever a Federal law preempts
State action? You can complain about the implementation
of that law because it has preempted your State action?
Is that the basis of standing you're alleging?
MR. MILKEY: In short, Your Honor --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Do you know any case that
has ever held that?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, I would cite you to
the amicus brief of the State of Arizona et al., which
cites several cases, albeit not in this Court, that
stand for that principle.
Your Honor, if I may turn to the merits
quickly, section 202(a)(1) provides EPA jurisdiction
over any air pollutant that motor vehicles emit. It's
not restricted to certain types of air pollutants or to
air pollutants that cause certain kinds of harm. And
not only does the act define air pollutant with
comprehensive breadth, but we know these four substances
are air pollutants from other evidence.
17
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 18/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
For example, Congress itself expressly
referred to carbon dioxide as an air pollutant in
section 103(g). And since by definition all air
pollutants are air pollution agents, we know that
Congress understood carbon dioxide to be an agent of air
pollution. And if air pollution --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Moving from your
authority argument to the exercise of authority, the
clause 202(a)(1) requires EPA to prescribe standards
which in their judgment cause or contribute to air
pollution reasonably anticipated to endanger public
health. And they say they haven't made that judgment
yet, so they're not in violation of that statutory
command.
MR. MILKEY: That is correct, Your Honor;
but they have said that they have put off making a
judgment based on impermissible grounds. While EPA's
explanation is difficult even to follow, one overarching
point shines through and that is the agency does not
agree with taking a regulatory approach regardless of
how it might otherwise come out.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Let's say the first
day this law is passed, there are a lot of air
pollutants that come out of motor vehicles. I mean, is
EPA immediately in violation of this statute if they
18
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 19/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
don't issue emissions regulations for every one those
air pollutants on day one?
MR. MILKEY: No, Your Honor. EPA has a lot
of room to move based both on the endangerment standard
itself and on background principles of administrative
law.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And presumably the
principle that they want to deal with what they regard
as the more serious threats sooner. They want to deal
with lead first and then they want to deal with other
stuff. I mean, what is the -- when did they -- I
guess -- move into an abuse of discretion in not
exercising a judgment with respect to a particular
pollutant?
MR. MILKEY: The answer to that, Your Honor,
is that when they do not rely on any of those grounds,
they do not rely on lack of information, they did not
rely on background principles of administrative law.
What though said here is -- and -- that they did not, in
fact, contest the seriousness of the problem. But note,
in two back to back sentences on page A-82 of the third
petition they say: We must address the, issue but we
disagree with the regulatory approach.
The very section in which they explained why
they weren't going to regulate is entitled "Different
19
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 20/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
Policy Approach." Rejecting mandatory motor vehicle
regulation as a bad idea is simply not a policy choice
that Congress left to EPA.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But if you are right and
then it went back and the EPA then said, well, an
obvious reason also is constraint on our own resources,
we have the authority to say what comes first, Congress
-- we couldn't possibly do everything that Congress has
authorized us to do; so it's our decision, even though
we have the authority to do this, we think that we
should spend our resources on other things.
Suppose they said that? You said they
didn't say it this time around, but how far will you get
if all that's going to happen is it goes back and then
EPA says our resources are constrained and we're not
going to spend the money?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, while background
administrative law principles provide EPA at least some
room to move, we think it's important that EPA say that.
If they -- it's a very different opinion if they say, we
are not going to regular here because we just don't want
to spend the resources on this problem and we want to
look elsewhere.
If they want to say that, they can say that
and then, if at all, there'd be a narrow arbitrary and
20
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 21/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
capricious challenge on that. But the point is here
they relied on the impermissible consideration that they
simply disagreed with the policy behind the statute.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That's not all they
said. I'm looking at A-85 and they said establishing
emissions now would require EPA to make scientific and
technical judgments without the benefit of studies that
are being developed to reduce the uncertainty in the
area. That's different than saying they disagree with
the regulatory approach.
MR. MILKEY: It is and it isn't, Your Honor,
because that statement will alleges be true. There will
always be scientific uncertainty. Agencies will always
have an understandable interest in seeing more
information. They never --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: There's a difference
between the scientific status of the harm from lead
emissions from vehicles that -- when you have lead in
the gasoline, to the status, the status of scientific
knowledge with respect to the impact on global warming
today? Those are two very different levels of
uncertainty.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, when EPA regulated
lead back in the ethyl days, as the Court court itself
took note, there were huge amounts of uncertainty at
21
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 22/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
that time. And EPA has a lot of discretion in
evaluating that, that uncertainty.
And if the EPA determined that the level of
uncertainty was such that it was not reasonable to
anticipate endangerment, that is perfectly appropriate.
It would also be appropriate if the agency determined
that there was so much uncertainty that they couldn't
even form a judgment on that. That would be applying
the endangerment statute at the same time it put off.
But the point is they did not say any of that. They
instead relied on impermissible grounds.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I had -- my
problem is precisely on the impermissible grounds. To
be sure, carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and it can be an
air pollutant. If we fill this room with carbon
dioxide, it could be an air pollutant that endangers
health. But I always thought an air pollutant was
something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and
your claim here is not that the pollution of what we
normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't,
that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant
leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is
contributing to global warming.
MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is
not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.
22
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 23/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I
told you before I'm not a scientist.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to
have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.
MR. MILKEY: Under the express words of the
statute -- and this is 302(g) -- for something to be an
air pollutant it has to be emitted into the ambient air
or otherwise entered there.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, and I agree with that.
It is when it comes out an air pollutant. But is it an
air pollutant that endangers health? I think it has to
endanger health by reason of polluting the air, and this
does not endanger health by reason of polluting the air
at all.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, respectfully, I
disagree, and there is nothing in the act that actually
requires the harm to occur in the ambient air. In fact,
some of the harm here does occur there.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, it talks about air
pollution all the time. That's what the, that's what
the thing is about, air pollution. It's not about
global warming and it's not about the troposphere.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, we are not saying,
first of all that global warming is air pollution, any
23
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 24/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
more than we're saying that asthma is air pollution.
They're both effects. I would point you to the example
of acid rain, where the pollutant there, sulfur dioxide,
the problem is it causes its harm after it leaves the
air, after it gets washed out. Air pollutants do not
need to cause harm in the ambient air.
Your Honor, I would add that our
interpretation satisfies common sense because, while EPA
has plenary authority over substances that motor
vehicles emit, those substances are regulated only if
EPA determines that they cause endangerment. By
defining the term "air pollutant" comprehensively,
Congress has not prejudged what may cause endangerment,
but it has allowed other pollutants to be regulated as
their harms become appreciated. It is EPA's
interpretation that fails the common sense test. They
have suggested that the term "air pollutant agent"
creates an independent test so important that it may
prevent some harmful compounds from being regulated
without providing any hint of what the term means or how
it applies in this case. And they cannot explain any
number of anomalies such as the fact that methane is
already a regulated air pollutant, yet they claim they
can't look at its climate effects.
Your Honor, if there are no more questions
24
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 25/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
I'd like to reserve my time.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you,
Mr. Milkey.
Mr. Garre.
ORAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE,
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
MR. GARRE: Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice,
and may it please the Court.
After carefully considering the issue the
nation's expert agency in environmental matters
concluded that Congress has not authorized it to embark
on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address
global climate change. And that even if it has, now is
not the time to exercise such authority, in light of the
substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global
climate change and the ongoing studies designed to
address those uncertainties. Plaintiffs have provide no
reason to override that quintessential administrative
judgment.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Garre, doesn't the
EPA's decision on the first, "we don't have any
authority," doesn't that infect its subsequent decision,
"well, even if we did, we wouldn't exercise it." But
they've already decided they don't have authority.
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, I don't think that
25
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 26/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
it does. In the sense, I think EPA made clear in its
decisional document that it considered as an alternative
matter, that if it, even assuming it did have the
authority, that it wouldn't be appropriate to exercise
it at this time.
And importantly, too, I mean, just to be
clear on this, EPA has never made an endangerment
finding with respect to global climate change. That was
true in 1998 and 1999 when the agency had a different
position on authority to regulate. Even then the
agency's position was clear. Even assuming we have the
authority, now is not the time to exercise it. So I
don't think --
JUSTICE GINSBURG: -- I take it that on that
question, is there authority, the EPA has come out one
way, but at least it is debatable because as you just
said, the predecessors of the current people said we do
have the authority.
MR. GARRE: Well, to that degree, Your
Honor, this Court has made clear, for example, in the
Brand X case that even where agencies change positions,
where they've provided reasonable grounds for a new
interpretation, that interpretation is entitled to
Chevron deference. We think that that is true in this
case.
26
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 27/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
JUSTICE BREYER: On this particular issue,
the opinion as I read it, of the EPA, consists of 32
pages. Twenty of those pages, 22 in fact, deal with
whether they have statutory authority. And of the 10
that deal with the issue we're talking about now, five
of them give as their reason that they think that the
President has a different policy. Of the remaining
five, two more consider international aspects of the
problem and how you have to get other countries to
cooperate; and then the conclusion of that part says in
light of these considerations, we decide not to exercise
our power.
Now their claim with respect to that, is
that at least three of the four considerations are not
proper things for the agency to take into account:
namely whether the President wants to do something
different, whether we're running foreign policy
properly, whether cooperation with other countries are
relevant to this particular issue.
So what they've asked us to do is send it
back so they can get the right reasons. Now -- if they
want not to do it. What's your response to that?
MR. GARRE: Justice Breyer, I don't think
that it depends on how many pages that the agency
devoted to the --
27
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 28/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 --
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
JUSTICE BREYER: The reason it depended on
that is whether or not these other, improper
considerations might have influenced the ultimate
decision not to go ahead.
MR. GARRE: I think it depends on the
reasons that the agency gave. And one of the reasons
that the agency gave was the substantial scientific
uncertainty surrounding the issue of global climate
change. Petitioners acknowledge that that was an
appropriate consideration for the agency. So even if
you think the other considerations were inappropriate,
and we certainly do not, but even if you think they are,
the agency gave an appropriate reason. And that reasons
JUSTICE BREYER: When I write an opinion --
when I write an opinion, sometimes I write the words:
"We decide this matter in light of the following three
factors taken together." And I guess a lawyer who said,
"one of those factors alone the Court has held justified
the result all by itself" -- in saying the Court has
held that, I guess that wouldn't be so. That would be a
bad lawyer, wouldn't it?
MR. GARRE: But Your Honor --
JUSTICE BREYER: If they write that all of
these considerations justify our result, again, one of
28
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 29/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
them by themselves, it sounds, they think would not have
been sufficient.
MR. GARRE: I -- I don't think that that is
a fair reading of the EPA decisional document, Your
Honor. Certainly, the agency didn't go out of its way
to say, "and reading these considerations together and
not any of them individually." And with respect to the
scientific uncertainty, Your Honor, you also have to
take into account that the EPA had before it and pointed
to the report of the National Research Council on global
climate change.
JUSTICE STEVENS: I find it interesting that
the scientists whose worked on that report said there
were a good many omissions that would have indicated
that there wasn't nearly the uncertainty that the agency
described.
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, if you are referring
to the amicus brief, Your Honor, there are -- assuming
there are amicus briefs on the other side. The Ballunas
amicus brief -- I think it is fair for the Court to look
at, to look at the document that the agency had before
it. That -- that document produced by the National
Research -- Research Council, that's the research arm of
the National Academy of Sciences. And it's one of the
gold standards of research.
29
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 30/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
JUSTICE STEVENS: But in their selective
quotations, they left out parts that indicated there was
far less uncertainty than the agency purported to find.
MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, I think one
thing that we ought to be able to agree on is there is
that there is uncertainty surrounding the phenomenon of
global climate change. I think the debate is on which
areas are more uncertain than the others. But certainly
I think the agency was entitled to conclude,
particularly if you take into account the deference this
Court should give to that kind of determination, that
the scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue of
global climate change, surrounding issues of the extent
of natural variability in climate, surrounding the
issues of impact of climate feedbacks like ocean
circulation, and low cloud cover, are permissible
considerations for the agency to take into -- -
JUSTICE STEVENS: Is there uncertainty on
the basic proposition that these greenhouse gases
contribute to global warming.
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, the report says that
it is likely that there is a -- a connection, but that
it cannot unequivocally be established. I think that --
if I could use that to go back to the standing question,
Your Honor, which is the fundamental question of whether
30
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 31/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
they've showed not just a connection between greenhouse
gas emissions in toto and the phenomenon of global
climate change, but the particular class of greenhouse
gas emissions at issue in this case. Six percent of
global greenhouse gas emissions, at most. That assumes
you put all U.S. vehicles off the road or that they are
all zero emission cars. So you're talking about
emissions --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- it is not a
mathematical question, right? I mean, you would -- it's
that you would -- what is the number? What's enough?
10 percent? 15 percent? Presumably, there's more to it
than the percentage of emissions attributable to be this
particular --
MR. GARRE: I think that's true, Your Honor.
But what petitioners here to show, they bear the burden
in order to establish standing under this case, is that
regulation of the class of greenhouse gases at issue in
this case will make a difference to them.
JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose it is not
greenhouse gas. Suppose it was Agent Orange. Suppose
there a car is coming down the street and it sprays out
Agent Orange. And I come into the Court and I say, you
know, I think that Agent Orange is going to kill me with
cancer. And the reply is, well, we have some scientists
31
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 32/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
here who say your chance of dying of cancer from Agent
Orange is only 1 in 30. Maybe 1 in 50. Maybe 1 in a
thousand. Maybe 1 in 10,000. And therefore, you have
no standing to require the EPA to regulate this
pollutant, Agent Orange, which is in a green cloud all
over the city.
Now, would you say that the person who's
made that claim has no standing?
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, I think that that is
a fundamentally different case, for the simple reason
that global climate change is a global phenomenon. I
mean one --
JUSTICE BREYER: I was only addressing,
using that to -- to address your problem that the
chances are too small that, in fact, any one individual
will be affected by the 7 percent or 6 percent of the
material that comes out of the truck -- the CO2.
MR. GARRE: The -- the individual in that
case, Your Honor, like the plaintiffs here, would have
to show specific facts demonstrating injury,
redressibility and traceability. Now in this case --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Your problem, I think, you
take the position, the proposition that the greater the
harm the greater the risk, the smaller the probability
has to be before it is reasonable to act, and necessary
32
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 33/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
to act.
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, this Court's
standing cases make clear that you have to show that
granting the relief requested is likely to redress the
alleged harms. And again, looking at the --
JUSTICE SOUTER: They are saying it is
likely to do so, even though we cannot give you a point
for point percentage correlation between reduction of
gas and coastline loss. You're saying, it seems to me,
that they have somehow got to pinpoint this
mathematically --
MR. GARRE: I don't -- we're not saying
that.
JUSTICE SOUTER: -- before, before there is
redressibility.
MR. GARRE: We're not saying that, Your
Honor. We're saying that they have, they certainly have
to do more than they have done here. And they're
granted their standing --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Tell me what it is that
they need, be more specific about what they need to do.
MR. GARRE: Well, I will be more specific.
And if I could also just point to what they grounded
their case on here. They grounded their case on here,
in the declarations, on the notion if the United States
33
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 34/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
regulates greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles, then
other countries will follow suit with respect to the
emissions of vehicles and other greenhouse gas
emissions. That's clear from the McCracken declaration
on page 239, paragraph 32 of the JA, as well as the
Walsh declaration.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I think it can be argued
that the Assistant Attorney General hasn't argued that
here.
MR. GARRE: Well --
JUSTICE SCALIA: He has said that 6 percent
is enough.
MR. GARRE: That, that's true, Your Honor,
but I still think you have to look at the basis that
they've relied upon on standing. And they haven't shown
specific facts which should provide any comfort to this
Court that regulation of less than 6 percent or fewer
greenhouse emissions worldwide will have any effect on
their alleged injuries.
JUSTICE SOUTER: Why is there -- why is
there reason to assume that it will have no effect?
MR. GARRE: Well --
JUSTICE SOUTER: That seems to be the
assumption you're making. You are saying unless they
can pinpoint the correlation between reduction of gas
34
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 35/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
and effect, let's say in coastline loss, they have not
shown either causation or a sufficient likelihood of
redressibility.
MR. GARRE: Your Honor --
JUSTICE SOUTER: But why do they have to
show a precise correlation as opposed simply to
establishing what I think is not really contested, that
there is a correlation between greenhouse gases and the
kind of loss that they're talking about; and it is
reasonable to suppose that some reduction in the gases
will result in some reduction in future loss.
Why is that insufficient?
MR. GARRE: Justice Souter, one fundamental
reason is that we don't know what the rest of the world
is going to do, whether or not --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Let's assume the rest --
let's assume that the rest of the world does nothing. I
don't think that's a very reasonable assumption, but
let's make that assumption. So that the only thing
we're talking is the 6 percent. If the 6 percent can be
reduced -- I think the suggestion was over a reasonable
period of time, by two and a half percent of the 6,
there is, I suppose, reason to expect that there will
be, maybe not two and a half percent less coastline
lost, but some degree of less coastline lost because
35
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 36/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
there is a correlation between the gas and the loss of
the coastline. Why is that an unreasonable assumption
to make in order to show causation and redressibility,
bearing in mind that redressibility is a question of
more or less, not a question of either/or.
They don't have to show that it will stop
global warming. Their point is that will reduce the
degree of global warming and likely reduce the degree of
loss, if it is only by two and a half percent. What's
wrong with that?
MR. GARRE: Justice Souter, their burden is
to show that if the Court grants their requested relief
it will redress their injuries. I'm not aware --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Not redress their injury in
the sense that it will prevent any global warming or
stop global warming and stop coastal erosion; their
argument is a different one. It will reduce the degree
of global warming and reduce the degree of coastal loss.
MR. GARRE: I think --
JUSTICE SOUTER: That's their argument. Not
all or nothing. But a part. That's what they're trying
to show.
MR. GARRE: And that's fine, Justice Souter,
I grant you that. But they still have to show that
there is reason that it is likely to believe, that the
36
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 37/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
reduction in that tiny fraction of United States
emissions, putting aside the 99 percent or the 95
percent in the rest of the world and what they do, and
the evidence that shows that greenhouse gas emissions in
those countries are increasing, they have to show the
regulation of that tiny fraction would have an affect on
their alleged injuries, not to completely redress them,
Your Honor. We don't say that --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Don't they have to show
that it is reasonable to suppose it will have an effect?
MR. GARRE: They have to show that it is
likely, Your Honor. And they haven't even tried to make
that showing. The one thing that they've --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Why is that showing -- and
I agree with, by the way, with the Chief's suggestion a
moment ago, life is not, or physics are not so simple as
to assume that there's going to be a be a direct two and
a half percent reduction of coastline for a two and a
half percent reduction from the 6 percent.
But isn't it intuitively reasonable to
suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse
gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing
damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the
damage? Isn't that fair?
MR. GARRE: I don't think that it is fair,
37
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 38/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
Your Honor. I don't want to pretend to be an expert on
global climate change. But the one thing I can say is
from the materials I looked at is that this an
extraordinarily complex area of science. I'm not aware
of any studies available that would suggest that the
regulation of that minuscule fraction of greenhouse gas
emissions would have any effect whatsoever on the
global -- -
JUSTICE SOUTER: But do you have any --
JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose others cooperate?
Suppose, for example, they regulate this and before you
know it, they start to sequester carbon with the power
plants, and before you know it, they decide ethanol
might be a good idea, and before you know it, they
decide any one of 15 things, each of which has an
impact, and lo and behold, Cape Cod is saved. Now why
is it unreasonable? Why is it unreasonable to go to an
agency and say now you do your part, which is 6 percent,
and now we're going to go to a different agency like
NHTSA and we're going to ask them too, and we're going
to go to your electricity regulation program, and coal.
And there are like not a million things that have to be
done, maybe there are only seven. But by the time we
get those seven things done, we'll make a big
difference. Now what is it in the law that says that
38
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 39/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
somehow a person cannot go to an agency and say we want
you to do your part? Would you be up here saying the
same thing if we're trying to regulate child
pornography, and it turns out that anyone with a
computer can get pornography elsewhere? I don't think
so.
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, what I would point
you to is your decision in Lujan versus Defenders of
Wildlife, Justice Kennedy's opinion in ASARCO versus
Kadish, where the Court made clear that you cannot
establish standing based on predictions of the actions
of independent actors not before it. That's true about
other agencies that aren't here today. That's true
about other countries whom this Court does not have
jurisdiction over.
JUSTICE BREYER: So they couldn't have gone
in and asked for ozone regulations, because that
requires other countries? Or what about dumping heavy
metals in the sea, and as the sea gets polluted because
of what other countries do, but EPA tried to regulate
that. Acid rain they tried to regulate. You're
saying there is no standing to ask for any of that.
MR. GARRE: Well, first of all, Congress has
specifically addressed two of the areas that you
mentioned, Your Honor, and we're not saying that
39
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 40/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
categorically --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Just because there's
no standing to challenge an agency's decision doesn't
mean the agency can't regulate that particular area,
right?
MR. GARRE: That's exactly right, Your
Honor. That's exactly right.
JUSTICE BREYER: But you are saying if
Congress passes a statute and they put the words CO2
right in this statute under ambient air, and they say
anybody can go and sue if the EPA doesn't do it, you're
saying Congress lacks the constitutional authority to do
that, because it's Article III we're talking about?
MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, we're saying
two things. First, every plaintiff has the obligation
to establish that he has Article III standing under this
Constitution. And secondly, there are members of this
Court, for example, Justice Kennedy in his concurring
opinion in Defenders of Wildlife, who did suggest that
perhaps if Congress specifically addresses an issue,
that could inform the standing analysis. For example --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: They can't
compromise the requirements of Article III.
MR. GARRE: It cannot, Your Honor. Congress
could make findings with respect to causation or other
40
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 41/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
issues that this Court would have to give deference to
and seriously consider, but you're right. It would not
override the requirements of Article III. And there may
be some global phenomenon that create more difficult
challenges to establish standing but --
JUSTICE STEVENS: As I understand the
government's position, you're not merely questioning
standing but you also take the position you do not have
the authority to do what the plaintiff asks you to do;
is that correct?
MR. GARRE: That's true, Your Honor, moving
to the merits, that's true. And with respect to that,
the agency engaged in the same type of analysis that
this Court laid out in the Brown and Williamson case.
JUSTICE STEVENS: May I ask you on that
question, if we turn to the statute, to Section 201,
there's reference to "shall regulate" if in the judgment
of the administrator there is a for real danger and so
forth. In your view, is there a duty to make a
judgment?
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, our view is that
agencies have inherent discretion to determine when to
make that judgment.
JUSTICE STEVENS: Could they have a
discretion never to make the judgment?
41
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 42/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
MR. GARRE: I think that gets to the
question of whether there is, what judicial review is
available. We have assumed in this case that there's
some measure of judicial review. So I think at some
point you got to the point where the agency either has
provided no reasons whatsoever, or there is no sound
basis for the agency not to take that step. Then
assuming that there is a role for the courts here, a
court could come in and say that that was inappropriate.
JUSTICE STEVENS: But as I read your brief,
you didn't really confront the question, s I understand
it, of whether or not there was a duty to make a
judgment at all. And I'm interested in what your
position on that is.
MR. GARRE: Well, again, I think it goes to
the question -- we think the statute does not put a
deadline on when the agency has to have, and that
therefore --
JUSTICE STEVENS: To me, just reading the
text of the statute is a little ambiguous. I'm not
entirely clear, but it seems to me that just reading
that statute, I got the impression that Congress thought
that the administrator had a duty to make a judgment
when there was enough evidence out there that people
were concerned about it and so forth, that there would
42
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 43/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
be a duty there, but you think not?
MR. GARRE: That's not the agency's
interpretation. In fact in its decisional document
under the section no mandatory duty, the agency explains
why that's not its interpretation and we think that
that's a reasonable interpretation. Congress knows how
to constrain the exercise of discretion. We point in
footnotes 18 and 19 of our brief of many examples where
Congress has laid out deadlines or other constraints on
the exercise of discretion, and those aren't present in
Section 203.
JUSTICE STEVENS: But you would agree that
if they did make a judgment, then you would have
authority to regulate?
MR. GARRE: That's right. And then I think
it's a point the D.C. Circuit made in the Ethyl
Corporation case at footnote 37, that precisely because
the statute imposes a duty to act once that endangerment
finding is made, the agency has discretion to determine
when to make the endangerment finding.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: In Norton versus Utah
Wilderness Alliance, having to do with the regulation of
off-road vehicles, we indicated that one measure was
whether or not the agency has unreasonably delayed its
action.
43
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 44/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
MR. GARRE: That's a separate sort of
action, Your Honor. There are cases where people have
said that this is unreasonable delay. That's not the
claim that the petitioners in this case brought.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Let me understand
your answer to Justice Stevens' question. If EPA made
the judgment under the statute, you think they would
have had the authority?
MR. GARRE: Under the statute --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought you had a
Brown and Williamson argument that EPA was precluded.
MR. GARRE: No, I was assuming -- in
answering Justice Stevens' questions, that we were down
in the exercise of discretion part. But you're right,
Your Honor, the threshold position of the agency on this
is that it lacks the authority to --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Can I ask about that? I
found persuasive Solicitor General Garre's point that in
the acid rain context, it isn't air pollution that harms
health, but rather it is the effect of the pollutant
after it leaves the air and produces the acid rain. Is
there anything wrong with that response? It seems to
me --
MR. GARRE: I think there is, Your Honor.
The way that the agency looked at this is to look at the
44
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 45/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
question of whether Congress intended it to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions to address global climate
change, and it looked to the factors that this Court
laid out in Brown and Williamson. The statute as a
whole is specific legislation addressing global climate
change, and it concluded that the agency had not
authorized it to embark on that regulatory --
JUSTICE SCALIA: You concede that it's an
air pollutant that affects health?
MR. GARRE: No. The agency -- what the
agency found, Your Honor, was that because global
climate change is not air pollution within the meaning
of the statute -- which is to say that Congress did not
authorize it to regulate it as air pollution.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Then why isn't it air
pollution within the meaning of the statute, although
whatever it is that causes acid rain is?
MR. GARRE: I think, Your Honor, that the
key to the agency was that Congress did not give it
regulatory authority over this. And I think on the
question of whether or not greenhouse gas emissions
qualify --
JUSTICE SCALIA: But you can't give me any
text in this statute itself. It isn't the phrase "air
pollution" or any other phrase?
45
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 46/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
MR. GARRE: The agency pointed to the term
"air pollution agent" in the statute, and concluded that
because global climate change was not air pollution that
Congress intended to address --
JUSTICE SCALIA: And that gets us back to
acid rain.
MR. GARRE: And with respect to acid rain,
it's a good example insofar as Congress has enacted a
whole separate title of the Clean Air Act to address
acid rain.
The other thing I want to mention on the
interpretive question is, in the Brown and Williamson
case, this Court assumed at the outset of its analysis
that nicotine would be within the general terms of the
definition of drug in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
and that cigarettes would fall within the general term
of drug --
JUSTICE SCALIA: So that's the position
you're taking, that it is within the general term?
MR. GARRE: I think it's largely the
position that the agency took, Your Honor, insofar as it
reasoned that, look, we've looked at everything. We
conclude that Congress doesn't intend us to regulate
global climate change as air pollution. And so
therefore, we're not going to say that greenhouse gases
46
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 47/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
are air pollution agents.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Which is why there's a
significant difference between the agency saying that
for 60 years, and I think this Court stressed that in
its opinion, and Congress reacting to that, what the
agency's position was. And here where it's a newly
minted position, because the agency's position not too
long ago was that they did have the authority.
MR. GARRE: Well, Justice Ginsburg, it was
30 years before the agency reached the conclusion in
1998 that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant. And
again, even when it reached that conclusion, it made
clear that it didn't think that the agency would
exercise its authority to regulate it.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That's a different
question. I'm just focusing on, did it have authority
to deal with this issue?
MR. GARRE: And I think -- I mean, I grant
you that there are differences between Brown and
Williamson and this case, but the fundamental conclusion
that the agency reached is the same. Which was, to
borrow the phrase from the Whitman case, Congress did
not intend to hide elephants in mouse holes. Here we
are talking about an issue of the magnitude of
regulating global climate change and greenhouse gas
47
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 48/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
emissions, which are fundamentally an important part of
the nation's economy. Nearly 85 percent of the economy
is a direct or indirect source of greenhouse gas
emissions.
And when we look at when Congress did
mention carbon dioxide in the statute, which is in the
1990 amendments, Section 103(g), that was the first time
that Congress mentioned CO2. And when it did that, it
went out of its way to say that it was giving
non-regulatory authority to the agency, and moreover,
that nothing in this section shall provide any basis for
any air pollution control requirements. That's a
strange thing for Congress to say if it believed that
the agency already had this far-reaching authority to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
There are other aspects of the statute that
we think lead to the same conclusion in Brown &
Williamson. There's a fundamental inconsistency, the
agency concluded, between attempting to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under the national air ambient
quality system, and that inconsistency is similar to the
inconsistency that the Court pointed out in the Brown
and Williamson case.
JUSTICE BREYER: I'd like you to address
that. You said there was a lot of legislation in
48
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 49/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
Congress that would have been pretty inconsistent with
serious regulation by the FDA. And in this case, I
don't think Congress is opposing the notion. I don't
know anybody there who's in favor of global warming.
And it seems to me they haven't passed laws that is
actually, that would be significantly interfered with by
the EPA trying to do its best to deal with this problem.
Or am I wrong?
MR. GARRE: I think you're wrong in the
following respect, Your Honor.
JUSTICE BREYER: What articles would be --
MR. GARRE: Congress has passed at least six
separate statutes to specifically address the issue of
global warming, and all of them share two common
features. One, we want you to research this issue and
learn more about it. And two, we want you to work on an
international framework for addressing global climate
change. The agency reasonably concluded that unilateral
U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases --
JUSTICE BREYER: Is there anything in the
statute that prevents them from consulting with other
nations or prevents the government from doing that when
they determine how best to work out whatever standards
or other forms of regulation they want?
MR. GARRE: There's nothing in the Clean Air
49
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 50/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
Act, if that's the stature you're referring to, but I --
JUSTICE SCALIA: I presume the problem that
they have in mind is that we have nothing to give in
international negotiations. If we have done everything
we can to reduce CO2, you know, what deal do we make
with foreign nations? What incentive do they have to go
along with us?
MR. GARRE: That's right, Your Honor. We've
got a unique collective action problem, and yet, the
reaction experience of the agency in dealing with the
issue of stratospheric ozone depletion rate had
precisely that situation, where the U.S. initially took
steps. The stratospheric ozone depletion worsened, and
it was only after international agreement was reached in
the Montreal Protocol that a global solution to the
problem was reached.
JUSTICE BREYER: Do you think they have a
good reason, yes or no? Because I'm not an expert in
foreign affairs. The EPA probably is more than I am.
But do you think that if they do rest their decision on
their analysis of foreign affairs, that that is a proper
basis for an agency like the EPA to refuse to regulate?
MR. GARRE: I think it's a proper basis
within its inherent discretion, Your Honor, for at least
two reasons. One, the agency is a part of the executive
50
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 51/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
branch and it had unique experience with the issue of
stratospheric ozone depletion. And two, Congress has
made clear, for example in the Global Climate Protection
Act of 1987, that the EPA has a role in at least
reporting to Congress on international cooperation and
efforts in that realm.
JUSTICE SOUTER: But Congress has not
directed, don't regulate domestically for purposes of
global warming.
MR. GARRE: That's true, Your Honor, but --
JUSTICE SOUTER: The problem that I have
with your reference to this very -- these various pieces
of legislation that suggest that Congress has a
different modus operandi in mind is that Congress
certainly is aware that EPA has authority over
pollutants, and it has never interfered with it.
MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, again, I think
in looking at all the sources the agency looked to, the
conclusion is, that the agency responsibly and prudently
reached, is that Congress has not authorized it to
embark on this regulatory endeavor. And I think the
closest statute that comes to --
JUSTICE SOUTER: But isn't that a
misstatement? Isn't the conclusion that they're trying
to draw that Congress doesn't want them to exercise the
51
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 52/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
authority they have for this purpose? And isn't that
something quite different? And doesn't that raise the
question whether that is a legitimate concern for them
under the statute that does give them the authority?
MR. GARRE: May I answer the question? No,
Your Honor. I think the agency's conclusion was
Congress had not authorized it to undertake the
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address global
climate change and that, even if it had, that authority
should not be exercised.
Thank you very much.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you,
Mr. Garre.
Mr. Milkey, you have 3 minutes remaining.
REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES R. MILKEY
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, do you want us
to send this case back to the EPA to ask them whether if
only the last two pages of their opinion were given as a
reason that would suffice? Would that make you happy?
MR. MILKEY: It would not make us happy,
Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I didn't think so.
(Laughter.)
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, if I can address
52
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 53/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 --
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
the global aspect of the problem, the fact that the
solution to the whole problem --
JUSTICE BREYER: What is your answer to
Justice Scalia? Because I thought you said before that
you thought it was appropriate for us to send this case
back so that they could redetermine in light of proper
considerations whether they wanted to exercise their
authority.
MR. MILKEY: That is exactly --
JUSTICE BREYER: Am I wrong about that?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, that is exactly
what we want. I understood Justice Scalia to be saying
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's what I was asking,
yes. And you think it will go back to them and they
will say, oh my goodness, the scientific uncertainty is
not enough by itself? You really expect that to happen?
MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, I
think EPA will have a hard time saying that there is
insufficient -- I mean, too much scientific uncertainty.
The very sentence --
JUSTICE SCALIA: They said it already.
MR. MILKEY: No, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: The only question is
whether that alone is enough.
53
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 54/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, they
did not say that. They did not anywhere say why the
existing uncertainty mattered. To the contrary, they
emphasized the need to act in the face of current
uncertainty, but never explained why that principle
applies to a nonregulatory approach but not to a
regulatory one.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What they said was
until more is understood about causes, extent and
significance of climate change and the potential options
for addressing it, we believe it's inappropriate to
regulate these emissions.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That strikes me as
saying they think there is too much uncertainty for them
to act.
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, they did not say
there is too much uncertainty for them to form a
judgment, which is the key issue. They said they
preferred more certainty, but because of the nature of
the endangerment standard, which emphasizes the
important of regulating in the face of uncertainty, they
have to at least explain why the uncertainty matters.
And that is -- what they did here is particularly
troubling in the fact that they ignored all of the
54
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 55/68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
indications pointing toward endangerment. They looked
at what we don't know without ever looking at what we do
know.
JUSTICE ALITO: If the EPA concludes that
regulating an air pollutant would endanger public health
and welfare, can it decline to regulate?
MR. MILKEY: Not under section 202, Your
Honor.
JUSTICE ALITO: It has to regulate even if
it concludes that regulation would make things worse?
MR. MILKEY: Would make things worse?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yes.
MR. MILKEY: I'm sorry, I didn't understand
that.
No.
MR. MILKEY: No, Your Honor. If they
thought there would be more endangerment that way they
would not have to regulate.
JUSTICE ALITO: Then why can't they -- what
is wrong with their view that for the United States to
proceed unilaterally would make things worse and
therefore they're going to decline to regular for that
reason?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, first of all, I
don't believe they actually said that, and there is
55
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 56/68
1
2
3
4
5 --
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
nothing in the statute that even hints that they can
take foreign policy considerations into account. To the
contrary, the statute is very specific in other sections
about when they're supposed to look at foreign emissions
JUSTICE ALITO: Isn't the definition of
public welfare extremely broad?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, it is certainly
extremely broad, and it does include climate.
Thank you, Your Honor.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
The case is submitted.
(Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the case in the
above-entitled matter was submitted.)
56
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 57/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 57
A able 11:24 30:5above-entitled
1:12 56:14abuse 19:12Academy 29:24account 7:3
27:15 29:930:10 56:2
accumulate 4:14achieve 11:16acid 24:3 39:21
44:19,21 45:1746:6,7,10
acknowledge 28:9
acres 13:13act 3:25 6:18
7:19 8:10 10:615:2 17:2323:17 32:2533:1 43:1846:9,15 50:151:4 54:4,16
action 17:8,943:25 44:250:9
actions 39:11activity 5:16actors 39:12add 9:11 10:4
24:7added 16:2,5address 19:22
25:12,17 32:1445:2 46:4,948:24 49:1352:8,25
addressed 39:24addresses 40:20addressing
32:13 45:549:17 54:11
administrative 3:14 19:5,1820:18 25:18
administrator
41:18 42:23adopt 9:17affairs 50:19,21affect 37:6affidavit 13:12
affidavits 4:139:7,10,14
agencies 11:2521:13 26:2139:13 41:22
agency 1:7 3:518:19 22:625:10 26:927:15,24 28:628:7,10,1329:5,15,21
30:3,9,1738:18,19 39:140:4 41:1342:5,7,17 43:443:19,24 44:1544:25 45:6,1045:11,19 46:146:21 47:3,1047:13,21 48:1048:14,19 49:1850:10,22,2551:18,19
agency's 26:1140:3 43:2 47:647:7 52:6
agent 18:5 24:1731:21,23,2432:1,5 46:2
agents 18:4 47:1ago 37:16 47:8agree 7:5 14:15
18:20 23:1030:5 37:15
43:12Agreed 6:8agreement
50:14ahead 10:18,19
28:4aimed 4:12air 3:25 4:14 5:1
6:18 7:19 8:910:6 11:4 15:216:11 17:20,2117:22,23,2518:2,3,4,5,6,10
18:23 19:222:15,16,17,2022:22 23:8,823:11,12,13,1423:18,20,22,2524:1,5,5,6,1224:17,23 40:1044:19,21 45:945:12,14,15,2446:2,3,9,2447:1,11 48:12
48:20 49:2555:5
al 1:3,7 17:15albeit 17:16ALITO 10:18
11:10,15 55:455:9,12,1956:6
allegation 7:2313:18 16:1
allege 16:13alleged 12:13
33:5 34:1937:7
alleges 21:12alleging 17:10Alliance 43:22allowed 24:14allows 10:19alternative 26:2ambient 16:11
23:8,18 24:640:10 48:20
ambiguous 42:20
amendments 48:7
amicus 17:1529:18,19,20
amount 11:3amounts 5:1
21:25analysis 40:21
41:13 46:1350:21
analytically 14:2
anomalies 24:22answer 19:15
44:6 52:5 53:3answering 44:13anticipate 22:5anticipated
18:11anybody 40:11
49:4appeal 7:20
APPEARAN... 1:15application 7:14applies 24:21
54:6apply 7:25applying 4:1
22:8appreciated
24:15approach 3:23
8:2 18:2019:23 20:121:10 54:6
appropriate 22:5,6 26:428:10,13 53:5
arbitrary 20:25area 3:12 5:10
21:9 38:4 40:4areas 4:17 30:8
39:24argued 34:7,8
argument 1:132:2,5,8 3:3,69:2 10:1,3,918:8 25:536:17,20 44:1152:15
arises 3:12Arizona 17:15
arm 29:23Article 40:13,16
40:23 41:3articles 49:11ASARCO 39:9
aside 37:2asked 15:13
27:20 39:17asking 4:4 14:18
53:14asks 41:9aspect 53:1aspects 27:8
48:16assertion 22:21Assistant 1:16
34:8assume 34:21
35:16,17 37:17assumed 42:3
46:13assumes 12:3,5
31:5assuming 26:3
26:11 29:1842:8 44:12
assumption 34:24 35:18,1936:2
asthma 24:1attempting
48:19Attorney 1:16
34:8attributable
5:16,19 31:13authority 3:17
5:25 6:9 8:1814:7,22 17:2
18:8,8 20:7,1024:9 25:14,2225:24 26:4,1026:12,15,1827:4 40:1241:9 43:1444:8,16 45:2047:8,14,16
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 58/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 58
48:10,14 51:1552:1,4,9 53:8
authorize 45:14authorized 20:9
25:11 45:7
51:20 52:7automobile 10:2automobiles
5:19available 38:5
42:3aware 36:13
38:4 51:15A-82 19:21A-85 21:5a.m 1:14 3:2
56:13
B back 19:21,21
20:5,14 21:2427:21 30:2446:5 52:1853:6,15
background 19:5,18 20:17
bad 20:2 28:22Ballunas 29:19based 3:15 4:7
16:24 18:1719:4 39:11
basic 6:18 30:19basis 17:10
34:14 42:748:11 50:22,23
bear 31:16bearing 36:4behalf 1:17,20
2:4,7,10 3:7
25:6 52:16behold 38:16believe 8:16
9:21 13:4 14:336:25 54:1155:25
believed 48:13benefit 7:23
10:11 12:821:7
best 11:16 15:1249:7,23
big 14:10 15:14
38:24Blue 16:7bomb 16:16borrow 47:22Boston 1:17branch 51:1Brand 26:21breadth 17:24Breyer 27:1,23
28:1,15,2431:20 32:13
38:10 39:1640:8 48:2449:11,20 50:1753:3,10
brief 14:9 17:1529:18,20 42:1043:8
briefs 29:19broad 56:7,9broader 7:23
8:4brought 44:4Brown 41:14
44:11 45:446:12 47:1948:17,22
burden 31:1636:11
burial 16:4
C C 1:18 2:1,6 3:1call 22:20
cancer 31:2532:1
capacity 14:6Cape 38:16capricious 21:1car 8:1 31:22carbon 5:18 6:7
6:10 7:1,9,15
11:13 12:2518:2,5 22:1422:15 38:1247:11 48:6
carefully 25:9
cars 6:14 7:2,7,711:5 31:7
case 3:12 6:137:21 8:17,189:1,7 13:1714:2,9,13 15:315:4,12 16:117:12 24:2126:21,25 31:431:17,19 32:1032:19,21 33:24
33:24 41:1442:3 43:1744:4 46:1347:20,22 48:2349:2 52:1853:5 56:12,13
cases 10:8 15:615:25 16:1017:16 33:344:2
cataclysm 5:4,6categorically
40:1causation 35:2
36:3 40:25cause 13:6 17:22
18:10 24:6,1124:13
caused 11:3causes 24:4
37:23 45:1754:9
causing 12:20
certain 17:21,22certainly 15:23
28:12 29:530:8 33:1751:15 56:8
certainty 54:20challenge 5:24
8:5,8 10:10
21:1 40:3challenged 7:24
9:7challenges 41:5challenging 8:14
chance 32:1chances 32:15change 4:5 9:13
9:16 25:13,1626:8,21 28:929:11 30:7,1331:3 32:1137:23 38:245:3,6,12 46:346:24 47:2549:18 52:9
54:10changes 9:17Chevron 26:24Chief 3:3,8 7:22
8:11 9:14 10:110:7 12:3,1213:16,23 14:114:8 18:7,2219:7 21:4,1625:2,7 31:940:2,22 44:544:10 52:1254:8,14 56:11
Chief's 37:15child 39:3China 12:7choice 20:2cigarettes 46:16Circuit 7:20
15:4 43:16circulation
30:16circumstances
11:17cite 17:14cites 17:16citizen 13:24city 32:6claim 16:24
22:19 24:2327:13 32:8
44:4claimed 6:6claiming 3:23
6:4 10:1216:20
class 31:3,18clause 18:9Clean 3:25 6:18
7:19 10:6 15:246:9 49:25
clear 26:1,7,1126:20 33:334:4 39:1042:21 47:1351:3
climate 4:5 9:13
24:24 25:13,1626:8 28:829:11 30:7,1330:14,15 31:332:11 37:2338:2 45:2,5,1246:3,24 47:2549:17 51:352:9 54:1056:9
closest 51:22cloud 30:16 32:5coal 8:2,3 38:21coastal 36:16,18coastline 10:16
12:13,17 13:213:9 14:1115:20 33:935:1,24,2536:2 37:18
Cod 38:16collective 50:9come 18:21,24
26:15 31:2342:9
comes 20:723:11 32:1751:22
comfort 34:16coming 31:22command 18:14
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 59/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 59
commentators 15:24
common 24:8,1649:14
complain 17:8
completely 37:7complex 38:4comply 15:2compounds
24:19comprehensive
17:24comprehensiv...
24:12compromise
40:23
computer 39:5concede 45:8concern 52:3concerned 42:25conclude 9:12
30:9 46:23concluded 25:11
45:6 46:248:19 49:18
concludes 55:455:10
conclusion 3:2027:10 47:10,1247:20 48:1751:19,24 52:6
concurring 40:18
confront 42:11Congress 17:1
18:1,5 20:3,7,824:13 25:1139:23 40:9,1240:20,24 42:22
43:6,9 45:1,1345:19 46:4,846:23 47:5,2248:5,8,13 49:149:3,12 51:2,551:7,13,14,2051:25 52:7
conjectural 5:9
conjecture 5:149:19,19
connection 30:22 31:1
consensus 5:15
5:15consequence
16:13consider 3:22
27:8 41:2consideration
21:2 28:10considerations
4:8 27:11,1428:3,11,2529:6 30:17
53:7 56:2considered 26:2considering
25:9consistent 10:8consists 27:2constant 12:4constitute 3:15
6:1Constitution
40:17constitutional
40:12constrain 43:7constrained
20:15constraint 20:6constraints 43:9consulting 49:21contest 19:20contested 35:7context 44:19contexts 10:4
continuously 5:7
contrary 9:1154:3 56:3
contribute 18:10 30:20
contributing 22:23
contribution 10:6,11 11:1112:6
contributors 10:2
control 48:12cooperate 27:10
38:10cooperation
27:18 51:5Copper 15:10Corporation
43:17correct 17:3
18:15 41:10correlation 33:8
34:25 35:6,836:1
Cosmetic 46:15Council 29:10
29:23counsel 56:11countries 27:9
27:18 34:237:5 39:14,1839:20
course 4:16court 1:1,13 3:9
4:4 9:8 13:1713:21 15:4,6,717:16 21:24,2425:8 26:2028:19,20 29:2030:11 31:2334:17 36:1239:10,14 40:1841:1,14 42:945:3 46:1347:4 48:22
courts 42:8Court's 33:2cover 30:16CO2 32:17 40:9
48:8 50:5create 13:9 41:4creates 24:18cumulative
12:18current 5:1
26:17 54:4currently 7:2,7
7:19,20
D D 3:1damage 16:9
37:23,24danger 41:18day 18:23 19:2days 21:24de 15:18deadline 42:17deadlines 43:9
deal 4:1 10:2519:8,9,10 23:5
27:3,5 47:1749:7 50:5
dealing 50:10debatable 26:16debate 30:7decide 8:25 9:1
27:11 28:1738:13,15
decided 25:24decision 3:15
8:7,12 20:925:21,22 28:439:8 40:350:20
decisional 26:229:4 43:3
decisions 8:14declaration 34:4
34:6declarations
33:25
decline 55:6,22declined 3:21deductions 8:21Defenders 39:8
40:19deference 26:24
30:10 41:1define 17:23
defining 24:12definition 18:3
46:15 56:6degree 26:19
35:25 36:8,8
36:17,18delay 44:3delayed 43:24demonstrate
14:13demonstrating
32:20Department
1:19depended 28:1dependent 17:1
depends 12:1427:24 28:5
depletion 50:1150:13 51:2
Deputy 1:18described 29:16designed 25:16determination
30:11determine 41:22
43:19 49:23determined 10:5
22:3,6determines
24:11developed 21:8development
12:7devoted 27:25difference 16:19
21:16 31:1938:25 47:3
differences 47:19
different 10:1319:25 20:2021:9,21 22:1826:9 27:7,1732:10 36:1738:19 47:1551:14 52:2
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 60/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 60
difficult 18:1841:4
dioxide 5:18 6:77:1,9,15 11:1312:25 18:2,5
22:14,16 24:347:11 48:6
direct 8:7 13:2037:17 48:3
directed 51:8disagree 19:23
21:9 23:17disagreed 21:3disapproved
9:19disarmed 16:21
disavowed 5:25disclaimed 6:9discrete 16:24discretion 4:1
19:12 22:141:22,25 43:743:10,19 44:1450:24
dispersed 10:12displace 12:8distinct 14:2document 26:2
29:4,21,2243:3
doing 49:22dollars 11:25domestic 12:10domestically
51:8draw 51:25drug 46:15,15
46:17dumping 39:18
duty 41:1942:12,23 43:143:4,18
dying 32:1D.C 1:9,19 7:20
15:4 43:16
E
E 2:1 3:1,1easily 9:23easy 11:2economic 12:6economy 48:2,2
effect 16:1234:18,21 35:137:10 38:744:20
effects 24:2,24efforts 51:6either 35:2 42:5either/or 36:5electricity 38:21elephants 47:23eliminate 12:19
embark 25:1145:7 51:21
emission 4:611:14 31:7
emissions 3:185:18 6:1,7 7:38:21 10:211:11 12:10,1512:18,20 19:121:6,18 25:1231:2,4,5,8,1334:1,3,4,1837:2,4 38:745:2,21 48:1,448:15,20 52:854:12 56:4
emit 17:20 24:10emitted 5:10
16:15 23:8emphasize 13:6emphasized
54:4emphasizes
54:21enacted 46:8encompassed
3:24endanger 3:19
18:11 23:13,1455:5
endangering
3:22 22:20endangerment
4:2 19:4 22:5,924:11,13 26:743:18,20 54:21
55:1,17endangers 22:16
23:12endeavor 51:21engaged 41:13ensuing 37:22
37:23entered 23:9entirely 42:21entitled 19:25
26:23 30:9
environmental 1:6 3:5 25:10EPA 3:14,21,25
4:5,6 5:24 7:147:17 9:12 10:417:2,19 18:918:25 19:320:3,5,15,1820:19 21:6,2322:1,3 24:8,1126:1,7,15 27:229:4,9 32:439:20 40:1144:6,11 49:750:19,22 51:451:15 52:1853:19 55:4
EPA's 3:17 7:2418:17 24:1525:21
erosion 36:16errors 3:16especially 9:6
ESQ 1:16,18 2:32:6,9
establish 4:138:4 31:1739:11 40:1641:5
established 13:530:23
establishing 7:23 21:5 35:7
et 1:3,7 17:15ethanol 38:13ethyl 21:24
43:16evaluating 22:2event 8:19evidence 9:11
17:25 37:442:24
exactly 40:6,753:9,11
example 4:1211:23 13:7,1113:21 14:24
18:1 24:226:20 38:1140:18,21 46:851:3
examples 43:8executive 50:25exercise 18:8
25:14,23 26:426:12 27:1143:7,10 44:1447:14 51:2553:7
exercised 52:10exercising 16:23
19:13existing 15:2
54:3expand 4:15,16expect 35:23
53:17expenditure
10:10experience
50:10 51:1expert 25:10
38:1 50:18explain 24:21
54:23explained 19:24
54:5explains 43:4
explanation 18:18
express 23:6expressly 18:1extent 5:8 11:2
30:13 54:9extraordinarily
38:4extremely 56:7
56:9
F face 12:11,19
54:4,22faces 10:22fact 3:19 4:11
6:22 7:17 8:129:15 14:419:20 23:1824:22 27:332:15 43:353:1 54:25
factors 28:18,1945:3
facts 32:2034:16
fails 3:20 24:16fair 29:4,20
37:24,25fall 46:16fallback 3:21famous 16:1far 10:19 15:24
16:9 20:1330:3
far-reaching 48:14
favor 49:4FDA 49:2
feasible 7:2features 49:15Federal 16:22
16:23 17:7feedbacks 30:15feet 13:10fewer 34:17figure 7:10
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 61/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 61
fill 22:15find 29:12 30:3finding 26:8
43:19,20findings 40:25
fine 36:23first 3:4 7:4 11:1
14:14,23 18:2219:10 20:723:25 25:2139:23 40:1548:7 55:24
five 6:23 27:5,8fleet 11:21fleets 6:19focus 5:8
focused 11:4focusing 47:16follow 9:22
18:18 34:2following 8:2
28:17 49:10Food 46:15foot 13:9footnote 43:17footnotes 43:8foreign 27:17
50:6,19,2156:2,4
Forest 16:7form 22:8 54:18forms 49:24forth 41:19
42:25found 13:22
15:4 44:1845:11
four 3:18 17:2427:14
fraction 11:2437:1,6 38:6
frame 3:10framework
49:17fueled 8:3fundamental
30:25 35:13
47:20 48:18fundamentally
32:10 48:1fuse 16:16future 5:9 13:15
35:11
G G 3:1 25:5Garre 1:18 2:6
25:4,5,7,20,2526:19 27:2328:5,23 29:329:17 30:4,2131:15 32:9,1833:2,12,16,22
34:10,13,2235:4,13 36:1136:19,23 37:1137:25 39:7,2340:6,14,2441:11,21 42:142:15 43:2,1544:1,9,12,2445:10,18 46:146:7,20 47:947:18 49:9,1249:25 50:8,23
51:10,17 52:552:13
Garre's 44:18gas 25:12 31:2,4
31:5,21 33:934:1,3,25 36:137:4 38:6 45:245:21 47:2548:3,15,2052:8
gases 4:14 5:1
5:10 8:8 11:312:6 14:2530:19 31:1835:8,10 37:2246:25 49:19
gasoline 21:19gather 5:14,17general 1:16,18
10:10 34:844:18 46:14,1646:19
George 16:7Georgetown
16:6Georgia 15:10Ginsburg 7:12
16:18 20:425:20 26:1447:2,9,15
give 27:6 30:1133:7 41:145:19,23 50:352:4
given 11:22
16:22 52:19gives 17:1giving 48:9global 6:2 8:21
8:25 9:3 11:1311:15 21:2022:23 23:5,2323:25 25:13,1526:8 28:829:10 30:7,1330:20 31:2,532:11,11 36:736:8,15,16,1838:2,8 41:445:2,5,11 46:346:24 47:2549:4,14,1750:15 51:3,952:8 53:1
globe 12:14go 6:3 9:8 28:4
29:5 30:2438:17,19,21
39:1 40:1150:6 53:15
goes 6:20 20:1422:22 42:15
going 4:15 5:29:16 12:4,5,714:25 19:2520:14,16,21
31:24 35:1537:17 38:19,2038:20 46:2555:22
gold 29:25
good 4:1 29:1438:14 46:850:18
goodness 53:16government
9:15 16:23,2349:22
governments 9:17,22
government's 41:7
grant 36:2447:18
granted 33:19granting 33:4grants 36:12greater 12:5
32:23,24green 32:5greenhouse 4:14
5:1 7:25 8:812:6,15 14:2525:12 30:1931:1,3,5,18,2134:1,3,18 35:837:4,21 38:645:2,21 46:2547:25 48:3,1548:20 49:1952:8
GREGORY 1:18 2:6 25:5
grounded 33:2333:24
grounds 3:15,174:3 18:1719:16 22:11,1326:22
group 16:19guess 19:12
28:18,21
H half 6:23 13:1
35:22,24 36:937:18,19
happen 13:1520:14 53:17
happens 12:14happy 52:20,21hard 4:18 53:19harder 15:1harm 4:21,22,23
5:6,6 6:4,6,216:22 10:2111:3 12:10,1012:12,19,20,2113:14,21 14:4
16:15,17 17:2221:17 23:18,1924:4,6 32:24
harmed 4:21 6:6harmful 24:19harms 4:11 5:8
9:10 11:8,2212:18 24:1533:5 44:19
health 3:19,2318:12 22:17,20
23:12,13,1444:20 45:955:5
hear 3:3heavy 39:18held 17:13 28:19
28:21help 8:15hide 47:23high 16:4hiking 16:6hint 24:20hints 56:1hit 4:18hold 7:13holds 7:13holes 47:23Honor 4:9,24
5:5,21 6:8,186:25 7:5,11,16
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 62/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 62
8:6,16 9:6,2110:13,25 12:912:16 13:4,1913:25 14:3,1414:23 15:16
16:14 17:3,1117:14,18 18:1519:3,15 20:1721:11,23 22:2423:16,24 24:724:25 25:2526:20 28:2329:5,8,17,1830:4,21,2531:15 32:9,1933:2,17 34:13
35:4 37:8,1238:1 39:7,2540:7,14,2441:11,21 44:244:15,24 45:1145:18 46:2149:10 50:8,2451:10,17 52:652:22,25 53:1153:18,23 54:154:13,17 55:855:16,24 56:856:10
horizontal 13:713:10
huge 21:25human 5:16hundreds 11:24
I ICC 16:4idea 20:2 38:14ignored 54:25
III 40:13,16,2341:3
illegal 10:10immediate 16:8immediately
3:11 18:25imminence
10:19
imminent 4:214:22,23 6:216:22 10:2216:16,17
impact 21:20
30:15 38:16impermissible
4:3 18:17 21:222:11,13
implementation 17:8
important 3:125:23 8:1911:22 20:1924:18 48:154:22
importantly 26:6imposes 43:18impression
42:22improper 28:2inability 16:25inappropriate
28:11 42:954:11
incentive 50:6incineration
16:2include 56:9inconsistency
48:18,21,22inconsistent
49:1increasing 37:5independent
15:5 17:424:18 39:12
indicated 29:14
30:2 43:23indications 55:1indirect 48:3individual 32:15
32:18individually
29:7infect 25:22
influenced 28:3inform 40:21information
19:17 21:15inherent 41:22
50:24initially 50:12injured 8:13injuries 34:19
36:13 37:7injury 4:10 8:4
8:12 9:2,510:14,15 32:2036:14
insofar 46:8,21insufficient
35:12 53:20intend 46:23
47:23intended 45:1
46:4interest 21:14interested 42:13interesting
29:12interfered 16:5
49:6 51:16international
27:8 49:1750:4,14 51:5
interpretation 3:14 24:8,1626:23,23 43:343:5,6
interpretive 46:12
intuitively 37:20issue 3:18 6:5
19:1,22 25:9
27:1,5,19 28:830:12 31:4,1840:20 47:17,2449:13,15 50:1151:1 54:19
issues 30:13,1541:1
J JA 34:5JAMES 1:16 2:3
2:9 3:6 52:15 judgment 4:4
18:10,12,1719:13 22:825:19 41:17,2041:23,25 42:1342:23 43:1344:7 54:19
judgments 21:7 judicial 42:2,4 jurisdiction
17:19 39:15Justice 1:19 3:3
3:8 4:20 5:3,135:22 6:3,11,207:4,6,12,228:11,23 9:1410:1,7,1811:10,15 12:312:12,23 13:1613:23 14:1,7,814:17,18,2115:9,22 16:1817:6,12 18:7
18:22 19:720:4 21:4,1622:12 23:1,423:10,20 25:225:7,20 26:1427:1,23 28:128:15,24 29:1230:1,18 31:931:20 32:13,2233:6,14,2034:7,11,20,2335:5,13,1636:11,14,20,2337:9,14 38:938:10 39:9,1640:2,8,18,2241:6,15,2442:10,19 43:1243:21 44:5,644:10,13,17
45:8,15,2346:5,18 47:2,947:15 48:2449:11,20 50:250:17 51:7,11
51:23 52:12,1752:23 53:3,453:10,12,14,2253:24 54:8,1455:4,9,12,1956:6,11
justified 28:19 justify 28:25
K Kadish 39:10
Kennedy 8:2314:7,18,21
15:9 32:2240:18 43:21
Kennedy's 39:9key 45:19 54:19kill 31:24kind 16:8 30:11
35:9kinds 4:11 17:22know 6:5 7:8
10:19 11:6
12:23 15:9,2517:12,24 18:431:24 35:1438:12,13,1449:4 50:5 55:255:3
knowledge 21:20
knows 43:6
L lack 19:17lacked 3:17lacks 40:12
44:16laid 41:14 43:9
45:4Laidlaw 13:22
13:23land 4:19 13:7
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 63/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 63
13:10landowner
14:10,15,1715:13,14,15
large 13:7 14:15
largely 46:20Laughter 23:3
52:24law 3:14,16,20
16:6,19 17:1,717:9 18:2319:6,18 20:1838:25
laws 5:11 16:1549:5
lawyer 28:18,22
lead 8:21 19:1021:17,18,2448:17
learn 49:16leaves 22:22
24:4 44:21left 20:3 30:2legal 3:20 8:5legislation 45:5
48:25 51:13legitimate 52:3let's 10:20 18:22
35:1,16,17,19level 7:25 22:3levels 4:25 21:21life 37:16light 25:14
27:11 28:1753:6
lighting 16:16likelihood 9:4
35:2limited 8:4
line 12:24 13:5little 42:20lo 38:16long 5:11 47:8look 10:18,19
20:23 24:2429:20,21 34:1444:25 46:22
48:5 56:4looked 38:3
44:25 45:346:22 51:1855:1
looking 10:2014:9 21:5 33:551:18 55:2
lose 12:1,16,1713:12
losing 10:1615:17,20
loss 12:13 13:713:10 15:733:9 35:1,9,1136:1,9,18
lost 35:25,25lot 5:13 15:15
18:23 19:322:1 48:25
lots 14:10low 30:16Lujan 39:8
M magnitude
47:24making 18:16
34:24mandatory 20:1
43:4margin 15:25
16:10marginal 12:8Mass 1:17Massachusetts
1:3 3:4 4:1810:22 11:2513:9
material 32:17materials 38:3mathematical
31:10mathematically
33:11matter 1:12 3:20
4:13 10:10
26:3 28:1756:14
mattered 54:3matters 25:10
54:23
McCracken 34:4
mean 5:3 6:4 7:612:23 18:2419:11 26:631:10 32:1240:4 47:1853:20
meaning 45:1245:16
means 5:2 24:20
measure 42:443:23
measures 7:8Mellon 15:11members 40:17mention 46:11
48:6mentioned
39:25 48:8merely 41:7merits 3:10 6:13
9:9 17:1841:12
metals 39:19methane 24:22miles 10:16
15:20Milkey 1:16 2:3
2:9 3:5,6,84:24 5:5,20,236:8,17,25 7:57:11,16 8:6,169:6,21 10:3,13
10:25 11:13,1912:9,16 13:413:19,25 14:314:14,20,2315:16 16:14,1817:3,11,1418:15 19:3,1520:17 21:11,23
22:12,24 23:623:16,24 25:352:14,15,17,2152:25 53:9,1153:18,23 54:1
54:13,17 55:755:11,13,16,2456:8
million 38:22millions 11:25mind 36:4 50:3
51:14minimis 15:19minted 47:7minuscule 38:6minutes 52:14
misstatement 51:24model 8:1modus 51:14moment 37:16money 20:16Montreal 50:15motor 7:13
11:11 17:2018:24 20:124:9
mouse 47:23move 19:4,12
20:19moving 18:7
41:11municipal 16:2
16:2
N N 2:1,1 3:1narrow 20:25national 29:10
29:22,24 48:20nations 49:22
50:6nation's 25:10
48:2natural 30:14nature 11:22
54:20
near 15:18nearly 29:15
48:2necessarily
12:13,21 13:5
necessary 32:25need 8:25 24:6
33:21,21 54:4needs 9:8negotiations
50:4never 21:15 26:7
41:25 51:1654:5
new 6:14 7:7,1813:11,12 26:22
newly 47:6NHTSA 38:20nicotine 46:14nonregulatory
54:6non-regulatory
48:10normally 22:20Norton 43:21note 19:20 21:25notion 33:25
49:3November 1:10number 16:20
24:22 31:11
O O 2:1 3:1obligation 40:15obvious 20:6occasions 10:5occur 5:9 9:10
23:18,19
occurring 4:259:13 13:14
ocean 4:1530:15
off-road 43:23oh 53:16omissions 29:14once 5:10 16:14
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 64/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 64
43:18ongoing 5:6
13:15 25:16operandi 51:14opinion 20:20
27:2 28:15,1639:9 40:1947:5 52:19
opinions 15:23Oppenheimer
13:11opposed 35:6opposing 49:3options 54:10oral 1:12 2:2,5
3:6 25:5
Orange 31:2131:23,24 32:232:5
order 4:5 9:131:17 36:3
ordinary 3:13ought 30:5outcome 7:21outset 8:23
46:13overall 11:3
13:1overarching
18:18override 25:18
41:3owned 14:10
15:15ozone 15:1
39:17 50:11,1351:2
P P 3:1page 2:2 19:21
34:5pages 27:3,3,24
52:19paragraph 34:5parks 11:25part 11:1 27:10
36:21 38:1839:2 44:1448:1 50:25
particular 7:258:1 10:15 11:8
19:13 27:1,1931:3,14 40:4
particularized 10:14,21 13:21
particularly 4:18 30:1054:24
parts 30:2pass 4:4passed 17:1
18:23 49:5,12
passes 40:9pending 7:21people 8:13
26:17 42:2444:2
perceived 9:4percent 5:18,20
5:22 6:1,15,227:1,9 10:2,511:4,5,7,10,2012:25 13:1,831:4,12,1232:16,16 34:1134:17 35:20,2035:22,24 36:937:2,3,18,1937:19 38:1848:2
percentage 8:2031:13 33:8
perfectly 22:5performance
7:18
period 35:22permissible 4:7
30:16person 15:18
32:7 39:1persuasive
44:18petition 4:7 7:17
19:22Petitioner 4:10petitioners 1:4
1:17 2:4,10 3:728:9 31:16
44:4 52:16phenomenon
30:6 31:232:11 41:4
phrase 45:24,2547:22
physics 4:135:11 16:1537:16
pieces 51:12pinpoint 33:10
34:25places 12:7plain 3:16plaintiff 40:15
41:9plaintiffs 25:17
32:19plant 8:3plants 7:14,15
38:13plays 5:7please 3:9 25:8plenary 24:9point 5:23 6:9
6:14 8:1918:19 21:122:10 24:233:7,8,23 36:739:7 42:5,543:7,16 44:18
pointed 29:946:1 48:22
pointing 55:1
policy 3:12,2320:1,2 21:327:7,17 56:2
pollutant 17:2017:23 18:219:14 22:14,1522:16,17,18,2123:8,11,12
24:3,12,17,2332:5 44:2045:9 47:1155:5
pollutants 8:9
17:21,22,2518:4,24 19:224:5,14 51:16
polluted 39:19polluting 23:13
23:14pollution 16:2,5
18:4,6,6,1122:19 23:21,2223:25 24:144:19 45:12,14
45:16,25 46:246:3,24 47:148:12
pornography 39:4,5
portion 11:6,18position 3:21
7:12 26:10,1132:23 41:7,842:14 44:1546:18,21 47:647:7,7
positions 26:21possesses 4:1possibly 20:8potential 54:10power 7:13,15
8:3 27:1238:12
powered 8:3precise 35:6precisely 22:13
43:17 50:12
precluded 44:11predecessors
26:17predicted 5:4predictions
39:11preempted 17:9preempts 17:7
preferred 54:20prejudged 24:13premise 6:18prescribe 18:9present 43:10
President 27:727:16
presumably 8:13 19:731:12
presume 50:2pretend 38:1pretty 49:1prevent 24:19
36:15preventing 4:12
prevents 49:2149:22
pre-Massachu... 15:11
principle 3:1717:17 19:854:5
principles 3:1319:5,18 20:18
probability 32:24
probably 50:19problem 8:20
11:6 15:1719:20 20:2222:13 24:427:9 32:14,2249:7 50:2,9,1651:11 53:1,2
problems 15:1proceed 55:21produce 10:24produced 29:22
produces 44:21program 38:21projected 12:1projects 13:12proper 27:15
50:21,23 53:6properly 27:18property 10:17
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 65/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 65
14:5 15:8,1715:19
proposition 30:19 32:23
Protection 1:7
3:5 51:3Protocol 50:15provide 20:18
25:17 34:1648:11
provided 15:526:22 42:6
provides 17:4,19providing 24:20provision 8:9
13:24
prudently 51:19public 3:19,22
18:11 55:556:7
purported 30:3purpose 52:1purposes 51:8put 9:11 18:16
22:9 31:6 40:942:16
putting 37:2
Q qualify 45:22quality 48:21question 8:18
11:1 14:815:14 26:1530:24,25 31:1036:4,5 41:1642:2,11,1644:6 45:1,2146:12 47:16
52:3,5 53:24questioning
41:7questions 24:25
44:13quickly 3:11
17:19quintessential
25:18quite 52:2quotations 30:2
R R 1:16 2:3,9 3:1
3:6 52:15rail 16:4rain 24:3 39:21
44:19,21 45:1746:6,7,10
raise 52:2raising 8:5rate 50:11rates 16:4ratio 12:24
reached 47:1047:12,21 50:14
50:16 51:20reacting 47:5reaction 50:10read 27:2 42:10reading 29:4,6
42:19,21real 8:21 41:18really 15:24
16:9 35:742:11 53:17
realm 51:6reason 20:6
23:13,14 25:1827:6 28:1,1332:10 34:2135:14,23 36:2550:18 52:2055:23
reasonable 22:426:22 32:2535:10,18,21
37:10,20 43:6reasonably
18:11 49:18reasoned 46:22reasons 27:21
28:6,6,13 42:650:25
reassuring 8:24
REBUTTAL 2:8 52:15
recognized 15:7record 7:1 10:21
11:20
redetermine 53:6
redress 33:436:13,14 37:7
redressibility 12:22 32:2133:15 35:336:3,4
reduce 7:8 12:1012:19,21 21:836:7,8,17,18
50:5reduced 6:23
35:21reducing 12:9
12:18reduction 6:15
7:1 11:16 12:112:24 33:834:25 35:10,1137:1,18,19,2137:22
reductions 10:23 11:23
reference 41:1751:12
referred 16:918:2
referring 29:1750:1
refusal 7:25refuse 50:22regard 19:8regardless 12:11
18:20regular 20:21
55:22regularly 6:19regulate 7:18
9:16 16:2519:25 26:1032:4 38:11
39:3,20,2140:4 41:1743:14 45:1,1446:23 47:1448:15,19 50:22
51:8 54:1255:6,9,18
regulated 21:2324:10,14,19,23
regulates 34:1regulating 16:21
47:25 54:2255:5
regulation 8:120:2 25:1231:18 34:17
37:6 38:6,2143:22 49:2,1949:24 52:855:10
regulations 10:24 11:1719:1 39:17
regulatory 3:248:9 16:2218:20 19:2321:10 45:7,2051:21 54:7
Rejecting 20:1relatively 8:20relevant 27:19relied 21:2
22:11 34:15relief 33:4 36:12relies 9:12rely 19:16,17,18relying 9:23,24remain 12:4remaining 27:7
52:14remediable 6:21reply 31:25report 29:10,13
30:21reporting 51:5reports 9:12representing
16:19requested 33:4
36:12require 21:6
32:4
requirements 40:23 41:348:12
requires 4:2118:9 23:1839:18
research 29:1029:23,23,23,2549:15
reserve 25:1resources 20:6
20:11,15,22respect 7:15
12:14 19:1321:20 26:827:13 29:734:2 40:2541:12 46:749:10
respectfully 22:24 23:1653:18 54:1
Respondents 1:20 2:7 25:6
response 27:2244:22
responsibilities 15:2
responsibility 16:22
responsibly 51:19
rest 4:2 35:14,1635:17 37:3
50:20restricted 17:21result 28:20,25
35:11results 8:22review 42:2,4reviewable 3:16Ridge 16:7
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 66/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 66
right 6:5,7,1411:12 12:520:4 27:2131:10 40:5,6,740:10 41:2
43:15 44:1450:8
rigid 13:3rise 4:15,16,17
13:9rises 13:6rising 10:17risk 32:24road 7:9 31:6roads 7:7ROBERTS 3:3
7:22 8:11 9:1410:1,7 12:3,1213:16,23 14:118:7,22 19:721:4,16 25:231:9 40:2,2244:5,10 52:1254:8,14 56:11
role 42:8 51:4room 19:4 20:19
22:15rulemaking 4:7
7:17ruling 4:2 5:24running 27:17
S s 2:1 3:1 42:11satisfies 24:8satisfy 12:22save 11:24 13:1saved 38:16saying 17:4 21:9
23:24 24:128:20 33:6,933:12,16,1734:24 39:2,2239:25 40:8,1240:14 47:353:12,19 54:15
says 20:15 27:10
30:21 38:25scale 8:20Scalia 4:20 5:3
5:13,22 6:3,116:20 7:4,6
12:23 14:1715:22 17:6,1222:12 23:1,423:10,20 34:734:11 44:1745:8,15,2346:5,18 50:252:17,23 53:453:12,14,22,24
scheme 3:24science 4:5 38:4
Sciences 29:24scientific 21:6
21:13,17,1925:15 28:729:8 30:1253:16,20
scientist 13:323:2
scientists 29:1331:25
scrap 16:1sea 4:25 39:19
39:19seas 4:16,16
10:17secondly 40:17section 3:25
7:19 17:1918:3 19:2441:16 43:4,1148:7,11 55:7
sections 56:3seeing 21:14
selective 30:1send 27:20
52:18 53:5sense 3:24 8:7
9:23 14:516:16 24:8,1626:1 36:15
sentence 53:21
sentences 19:21separate 44:1
46:9 49:13sequester 38:12serious 19:9
49:2seriously 41:2seriousness
19:20set 4:5seven 5:17 38:23
38:24share 49:14shines 18:19short 17:11show 4:22 8:12
9:3,5,23 10:2111:2 31:1632:20 33:335:6 36:3,6,1236:22,24 37:537:9,11
showed 4:10 9:931:1
showing 14:437:13,14
shown 4:25 6:259:22 10:1511:9,19 15:1934:15 35:2
shows 37:4side 29:19significance
54:10significant 10:6
11:23 12:247:3
significantly 49:6
similar 48:21similarly 7:13
11:8simple 32:10
37:16simply 4:6 9:4
10:11 20:221:3 35:6
situation 50:12six 31:4 49:12sizeable 11:6slope 13:8small 8:20 10:12
11:17,22,2413:6 14:1715:13,15 32:15
smaller 32:24Solicitor 1:18
44:18solution 50:15
53:2somewhat 14:2sooner 19:9sorry 55:13
sort 9:18,1944:1
sound 42:6sounds 29:1source 7:18 15:5
17:5 48:3sources 5:25
6:10 11:551:18
Souter 33:6,1433:20 34:20,2335:5,13,1636:11,14,20,2337:9,14 38:951:7,11,23
sovereign 10:1613:13 14:615:7
sovereignty 16:25
special 14:12,1914:24
specific 8:5
13:24 32:2033:21,22 34:1645:5 56:3
specifically 39:24 40:2049:13
spend 20:11,1620:22
spitting 9:18sprays 31:22spring 5:7stand 17:17standard 3:16
7:18,24 19:454:21
standards 4:618:9 29:2549:23
standing 3:114:10,20 6:5,126:13 8:15 9:2,39:24 10:8,913:17,20 14:1114:12,19,24
15:5,18,21,2516:10 17:5,717:10 30:2431:17 32:4,833:3,19 34:1539:11,22 40:340:16,21 41:541:8
start 38:12starts 9:15state 13:11
14:12,21 15:717:8,9,15
statement 8:2421:12
states 1:1,135:19 10:1611:12 14:416:20,25 33:2537:1 55:20
stature 50:1status 21:17,19
21:19
statute 4:1118:25 21:322:9 23:7 40:940:10 41:1642:16,20,2243:18 44:7,945:4,13,16,2446:2 48:6,16
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 67/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 67
49:21 51:2252:4 56:1,3
statutes 49:13statutory 3:13
4:2 18:13 27:4
stay 5:11stayed 7:20step 42:7steps 50:13Stevens 29:12
30:1,18 41:641:15,24 42:1042:19 43:1244:6,13
stop 36:6,16,16straight 12:24
13:5straightforward
15:21strange 48:13stratosphere
22:22,25stratospheric
16:12 22:1850:11,13 51:2
street 31:22stressed 47:4strikes 9:18
54:14strongest 13:17
14:9students 16:5,6
16:20studies 21:7
25:16 38:5stuff 19:11subject 4:19submitted 56:12
56:14
subsequent 25:22
subsidence 4:19substances 3:18
3:22 17:2424:9,10
substantial 25:15 28:7
suddenly 5:6sue 40:11suffering 10:23suffice 52:20sufficient 13:22
29:2 35:2suggest 38:5
40:19 51:13suggested 24:17suggestion
35:21 37:15suit 9:22 13:24
34:2sulfur 24:3support 13:17suppose 14:10
15:14 20:1231:20,21,2135:10,23 37:1037:21 38:10,11
supposed 56:4Supreme 1:1,13
15:6sure 15:22 22:14surprised 13:3surrounding
25:15 28:830:6,12,13,14
system 48:21
T T 2:1,1take 5:11 6:15
6:17 16:15,1726:14 27:1529:9 30:10,1732:23 41:842:7 56:2
taken 28:18
takes 11:21talked 9:15talking 6:4
16:10 27:531:7 35:9,2040:13 47:24
talks 23:20taxpayer 10:8,9
technical 21:7technology 9:16
9:17tell 23:5 33:20temperatures
4:15Tennessee 15:10term 24:12,17
24:20 46:1,1646:19
terms 8:18 11:815:5 46:14
territory 10:1713:13
test 4:2 24:16,18text 42:20 45:24
Thank 5:22 25:225:7 52:11,1256:10,11
thing 23:22 30:535:19 37:1338:2 39:346:11 48:13
things 20:1127:15 38:15,2238:24 40:1555:10,11,21
think 7:8 8:6 9:814:4,24 15:1615:20,22 20:1020:19 23:1225:25 26:1,1326:24 27:6,2328:5,11,1229:1,3,20 30:430:7,9,2331:15,24 32:932:22 34:7,1435:7,18,21
36:19 37:2539:5 42:1,4,1542:16 43:1,543:15 44:7,2445:18,20 46:2047:4,13,1848:17 49:3,950:17,20,23
51:17,21 52:652:23 53:15,1954:15
third 19:21thought 4:20
16:24 17:222:17 42:2244:10 53:4,555:17
thousand 32:3thousands 13:13threat 10:22threats 19:9three 27:14
28:17threshold 15:19
44:15time 5:8,11
11:21 20:1322:1,9 23:2125:1,14 26:526:12 35:2238:23 48:753:19
tiny 37:1,6title 46:9today 3:4 21:21
39:13told 23:2total 5:18 11:10
11:11toto 31:2traceability 11:1
11:2 32:21traceable 10:23traditional 15:8transported
16:3tried 37:12
39:20,21troposphere
22:25 23:1,23troubling 54:25truck 32:17true 13:8 21:12
26:9,24 31:1534:13 39:12,13
41:11,12 51:10truth 23:5trying 36:21
39:3 49:751:24
turn 3:11 4:96:19 11:2117:18 41:16
turned 7:17turns 3:13 39:4Twenty 27:3two 3:15 12:25
19:21 21:2127:8 35:22,2436:9 37:17,1839:24 40:15
49:14,16 50:2551:2 52:19
two-and-a-half 11:20 12:2513:1
type 41:13types 17:21
U ultimate 28:3ultimately 7:6
9:8uncertain 30:8uncertainties
25:17uncertainty
21:8,13,22,2522:2,4,7 25:1528:8 29:8,1530:3,6,12,1853:16,20 54:354:5,15,18,2254:23
uncontested 4:12 9:9 14:25understand 6:11
6:20 17:6 41:642:11 44:555:13
understandable 21:14
Alderson Reporting Company
8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 05-1120
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-05-1120 68/68
Official - Subject to Final Review
Page 68
understood 18:553:12 54:9
undertake 52:7unequivocally
30:23
unilateral 49:18unilaterally
55:21unique 50:9
51:1United 1:1,13
5:19 11:1233:25 37:155:20
unreasonable 36:2 38:17,17
44:3unreasonably
43:24use 30:24Utah 43:21U.S 5:25 11:5
12:18 31:649:19 50:12
V v 1:5variability
30:14variety 4:10various 51:12vehicle 6:19
20:1vehicles 7:13
11:11 17:2018:24 21:1824:10 31:634:1,3 43:23
versus 3:4 15:10
15:11 39:8,943:21
visit 4:6
W Walsh 34:6want 4:6 10:24
13:6 19:8,9,1020:21,22,2423:4 27:2238:1 39:146:11 49:15,1649:24 51:2552:17 53:12
wanted 53:7wants 27:16warming 5:15
8:25 9:3 21:20
22:23 23:5,2323:25 30:2036:7,8,15,1636:18 49:4,1451:9
washed 24:5Washington 1:9
1:19 16:7wasn't 13:24
29:15waste 16:3waters 4:15way 26:16 29:5
37:15 44:2548:9 55:17
Wednesday 1:10
welfare 3:19,2355:6 56:7
went 20:5 48:9weren't 19:25West 15:3we'll 3:3 38:24
we're 4:19 6:410:20 11:23
we've 46:22 50:8whatsoever 38:7
42:6Whitman 47:22wide 4:10
widely 10:12Wilderness
43:22Wildlife 39:9
40:19Williamson
41:14 44:1145:4 46:1247:20 48:18,23
win 8:17,17words 7:24 23:6
28:16 40:9work 49:16,23worked 29:13works 13:2world 4:17 8:21
35:14,17 37:3worldwide
34:18worse 5:2 15:1
55:10,11,21worsened 50:13wouldn't 6:16
25:23 26:428:21,22
write 28:15,1628:16,24
wrong 36:1044:22 49:8,953:10 55:20
X x 1:2,8 26:21
Y
year 5:7 7:4
zero 31:7
0 05-1120 1:5 3:4
1
1 10:2,5 32:2,2,232:3
10 10:20 27:431:12
10,000 32:310:02 1:14 3:2103(g) 18:3 48:711:02 56:131202 3:2515 31:12 38:1518 43:819 43:81907 15:91987 51:41990 48:71998 26:9 47:111999 26:9
2 2 13:820 6:1 11:4,7200 10:16 15:6
15:202006 1:10201 41:16202 55:7202(a)(1) 17:19
18:92020 13:14203 43:112100 5:722 27:3239 34:5
25 2:729 1:10
4 40 7:1,9
5 5 10:20
50 13:10 32:252 2:10
6 6 5:20,22 6:15
6:22 11:5,6,1032:16 34:11,1735:20,20,2237:19 38:18
60 47:4
7 7 32:16
8 85 48:2
9 95 37:299 37:2