On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court gave environmentalists two reasons to celebrate. The first decision, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, startled many observers and sharply divided the Supreme Court. In evaluating the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) role in addressing global warming the court split five to four. The subject of this Comment, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, produced a unified Supreme Court. Only Justice Thomas filed a partial concurrence. Concisely summarized, the Court held that the EPA may interpret the same statutory definition differently in differing contexts.
In Duke, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address two issues: whether the EPA properly interpreted the term “modification” under the statutory framework of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and whether the Fourth Circuit improperly exercised jurisdiction over the industry’s challenge to the regulations. The Supreme Court’s decision may provide valuable guidance for district courts attempting to apply the law in different circumstances across the nation. Although the decision is significant, it may be undercut by a lack of enthusiasm from the Bush Administration.
