The Supreme Court cleans the air: legal and scientific standards for argument in Massachusetts v. EPA

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe different argument norms that govern scientific and legal argument spheres present a series of challenges when scientific arguments are subject to adjudication in legal contexts. As these argument spheres intersect, there is a process of negotiation between making scientific arguments justiciable for legal judgment while ensuring that scientific evidence retains its scientific merits. The Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) ruling, the landmark decision on the effort to combat global warming, demonstrates how argumentation studies are well positioned to navigate these challenges to offer reasoned judgment. While standards of legal and scientific arguments are often in tension, this paper explores how the Supreme Court ruling navigates this tension through awarding standing to the Petitioners. I argue that the Supreme Court's characterization of standing, the legal requirement for bringing suit, helps reconcile fissures between legal and scientific standards of argumentation, enabling legal assessments of scientific argument that better reflect the norms of scientific argument.