U.S. justices scheduled to consider climate change cases

Source: Reuters - Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:45 GMT
Author: Reuters
cli-cli cli-pol
Rush hour traffic travels north and south along Interstate highway 5 in Carlsbad, California, February 8, 2011. REUTERS/Mike Blake
Tweet Recommend Google + LinkedIn Email Print
Leave us a comment

(Adds new information about court meeting this week)

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court meets later this week to consider whether to undertake a legal review of the Obama administration's first wave of regulations tackling climate change.

For the second week running on Monday, the nine justices took no action on the cases, but the court later in the day listed them on its online docket for its next private meeting on Friday. That is when they will decide what new cases to take.

The court will likely announce what action it will take only on Tuesday, Oct. 15.

The nine petitions pending before the court, filed by states and industry groups, were not mentioned in a list of cases the court declined to hear on Monday, the first day of oral argument in a term that runs through June.

Last week, the cases were absent also from a list of new cases the court agreed to hear.

The regulations, which apply to a cross-section of polluters from vehicles to industrial facilities, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists say these are the prime contributor to climate change.

States, including Texas and Virginia, and industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had filed petitions asking the justices to review the regulations, arguing they would pose an economic burden to implement, among other complaints.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller, Gerald E. McCormick and Andre Grenon)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of the Thomson Reuters Foundation. For more information see our Acceptable Use Policy.

comments powered by Disqus