October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1426
Does the Clean Air Act allow cost factors in setting air quality standards?
Truckers argue the EPA must consider economic costs when setting air quality standards. The agency insists the law requires setting standards based only on health effects.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
General Waxman stated the EPA has consistently interpreted the Clean Air Act for thirty years. He argued the law requires setting standards solely by reference to pollutant presence in the air. He emphasized the agency's long-standing interpretation of the statute.
argument_summary
The government contends the Clean Air Act mandates setting standards based only on health effects. the sides that brought the case argue the statute allows considering economic costs. The Court must decide which interpretation aligns with the law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on how the EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards. the sides that brought the case claim the agency must weigh economic costs. The government argues the statute mandates standards based solely on pollutant presence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 7, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to allow the EPA to consider economic costs when setting air quality standards.
The government wants the Court to require the EPA to set standards based solely on health effects.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Clean Air Act permits the EPA to balance economic costs against health benefits.
The government argues the statute requires setting standards based only on the effects of a pollutant's presence in the air.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
What the justices asked
Does the Clean Air Act authorize the EPA to consider economic costs when setting air quality standards?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
Why it matters
This case determines whether the EPA can weigh economic costs when setting air quality standards. The outcome shapes how the agency balances public health and economic impact. It defines the scope of federal regulatory power over air pollution.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 15-17
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.