In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA had the right to regulate industry emissions of heat-trapping gases. Subsequently, challengers including individuals doubtful of the existence of global warming and representatives from certain industries brought the EPA to court, arguing against the EPA's claim that human health and well-being are imperiled by greenhouse gases. Specifically, the opponents challenged EPA studies that indicate the danger to human health. Ultimately, many of EPA's rules and regulations rely on that finding. One opponent of the EPA-Sullivan, the Alaska Attorney General-said that Alaska had "important interests that will be impaired by the endangerment finding." Specifically, he argued that his state could not handle the encumbrance of some of the EPA's regulations regarding greenhouse gases. This case was a 2010 consolidation of 16 separate cases challenging the EPA.
What main issues does this case come down to? How did the court decide? Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al. v. EPA, Case No. 09-1322, (D.C. Cir. 2010).