The Oakland Tribune

September 2007
Hill;9/11/2007, Vol. 14 Issue 103, p28
The article reports on the Supreme Court ruling allowing California to protect its environment. California has been trying to persuade the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the state to protect the environment for nearly two years. According to the author, there is no reason by EPA cannot grant the state's request to begin enforcing their own rules on vehicle emissions.


Related Articles

  • High sourt says EPA must regulate GHG. McGowan, Elizabeth // Waste News;12/24/2007, Vol. 13 Issue 17, p12 

    The article reports on issues concerning the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate CO2 and other heat-trapping gases emitted by cars. It is informed that many ebullient environmental groups, business leaders and legislators supported the...

  • Stronger pollution limits for Anacostia River.  // Underground Construction;Apr2007, Vol. 62 Issue 4, p5 

    The article reports on the approval of a lower court ruling requiring limits on the amount of pollution allowed in the Anacostia River each day by the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to set the daily pollution caps was...

  • Supreme Court Reinstates Clean Air Standards, Rejects Improper Delegation Challenge. Brax, Jeff // Ecology Law Quarterly;2001, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p541 

    Discusses the United States Supreme Court decision on a Clean Air Act case which rejected the improper delegation challenge against important environmental regulations. Court ruling on the case by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. in 1999; Implications to the Environmental...

  • Consider Requiring Cost-Benefit Test? Lazarus, Richard // Environmental Forum;Mar/Apr2015, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p12 

    The article discusses the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court to the case Michigan v. EPA that deals with the validity of the regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from electric utility steam generating units....

  • Supreme Court rules EPA can regulate carbon emissions.  // Mining Engineering;May2007, Vol. 59 Issue 5, p6 

    The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate carbon emissions in motor vehicles. The Court claims that the decision was based on the Clean Air Act (CAA). It emphasized that EPA has no reasoned...

  • Supreme Court overturns decision invalidating EPA's CSAPR.  // Power Engineering;May2014, Vol. 118 Issue 5, p4 

    The article reports on the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a federal appeals court ruling that claimed that the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has violated the Clean Air Act (CAA).

  • CALENDAR.  // Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases;2/24/2014, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p200 

    A calendar of U.S. Supreme Court cases in February to March 2014 is presented which include the Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

  • Rahall Applauds EPA 'Win' in Supreme Court. Tincher, Sarah // State Journal (WV);6/27/2014, Vol. 30 Issue 26, p7 

    The article reports that the Environmental protection Agency wins in the U.S. Supreme Court over a case "Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. Environmental Protection Agency."

  • Supreme Court Declines Spruce No. 1 Review.  // Coal Age;Apr2014, Vol. 119 Issue 4, p6 

    The article reports on the refusal of the Supreme Court to review the Spruce Number one mine project, a ruling of the federal court that upholds the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to retroactively reverse the permit on Clean Water Act, worth $250 million in the U.S.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics