由於美環保署（EPA）遲遲未對2007年麻州控訴案做出決定，來自全美17州及紐約市、巴爾市、哥倫比亞區的檢察長，和另外13個環保團體遂於4日向上訴法院提出上訴，希望環保署針對溫室氣體釋放的相關法規做出回應。
在麻州控告環保署案的裁定中，美最高法院於2007年4月2日要求環保署應決議是否要依循「空氣清淨法」的規定，管制車輛所釋放的溫室氣體，然而環保署至今卻仍未做出回應，因此最高法院於2008年4月2日判定，環保署必須在60天內有所行動。
「環保署的態度，讓我們再次採取這樣激烈的方式，來對抗氣候變遷造成的危害」，麻州檢查長寇克莉（Martha Coakley）表示，「環保署本身承認2007年最高法院已要求其決議，溫室氣體是否會危及公眾健康或福利，而一旦查證屬實便須進行管制，然而面對這已然發生的危險，環保署遲未表態的舉動明顯失職。」
有別於環保署的宣稱，美最高法院在麻州控告環保署一案中，明定環保署有權依空氣清淨法的規定管制溫室氣體，且以政策的優先遵循順序而言，環保署無權抗拒空氣清淨法案所賦予的執行職責；換句話說，環保署必須查證科學資訊，判定溫室氣體是否會對大眾健康或福利造成危害。
從2007年發起請願行動到法院裁決，環保署已公開且清楚表明，他們相信溫室氣體會危害到大眾健康或福利；每當環保署面臨抉擇時，就必須遵循空氣清淨法來管制溫室氣體，然而在多數案例中，環保署承諾在2007年底前，向最高法院呈交溫室氣體危害程度的評估，並擬定車輛排放溫室氣體的標準。
Attorneys general from 17 states, the City of New York, the City of Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and 13 environmental advocacy groups today asked the U.S. Court of Appeals here to order the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to respond to last year's ruling on greenhouse gas emissions in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA.
That ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court issued exactly one year ago today, required the EPA to make a decision on whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act. A year later, the EPA has not issued a decision. Today's court filing requests an order requiring the EPA to act within 60 days.
"Once again the EPA has forced our hand, which has resulted in our taking this extraordinary measure to fight the dangers of climate change," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. "As the EPA itself has acknowledged, last year's Supreme Court ruling requires it to determine whether greenhouse gases are endangering public health or welfare, and if so to begin regulating them. The EPA's failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty."
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that - contrary to the agency's claim - the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
The court also declared that the agency could not refuse to exercise that authority based on the agency's policy preferences. Instead, the EPA would have to decide, based on scientific information, whether it believed that greenhouse gas emissions were posing dangers to public health or welfare.
According to the petition, after last year's ruling, the EPA publicly made clear its belief that greenhouse gases are in fact endangering public health or welfare.
Once the EPA comes to that judgment, it must regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. On multiple occasions, the agency promised that it would respond to the Supreme Court's opinion by issuing an endangerment determination and draft motor vehicle emission standards by the end of last year.
全文及圖片詳見：ENS
作者
In my healing journey and learning to attain the breath awareness, I become aware of the reality that all the creatures of the world are breathing the same breath. Take action, here and now. From my physical being to the every corner of this out of balance's planet.
