<P> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on September 13, 2005, to uphold the decision of the EPA . However, appellate judges were sharply at odds in their reasoning for reaching the majority conclusion . </P> <P> The lower court was sharply divided on whether the petitioners had "standing," a personalized injury creating a right to claim remedial action from the government through the courts (i.e., rather than to seek favorable action by pressing for supportive legislation). One of the three judges found no standing while a second of the three postponed a factual decision for any later trial . Although it had granted certiorari, the Supreme Court could have revisited the question of standing to dodge a difficult decision and dismiss the case for lack of standing . However, once certiorari has been granted, such a reversal is rare . </P> <P> On June 26, 2006, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari . </P> <Ol> <Li> Whether the petitioners had standing . </Li> <Li> Whether carbon dioxide is an "air pollutant" causing "air pollution" as defined by the CAA . If carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant causing air pollution, then the EPA has no authority under the CAA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions . If the CAA governs carbon dioxide, the EPA Administrator could decide not to regulate carbon dioxide, but only consistent with the terms of the CAA . </Li> <Li> Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles on the basis of policy considerations not enumerated in section 202 (a) (1). </Li> </Ol>

What authority is given to the epa by statute