Justices Divided Over Greenhouse Gas Regulations

, The National Law Journal


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

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

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

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

What's being said

  • not available

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

  • not available

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

  • not available

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

  • not available

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

  • not available


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

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202644317874

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.