Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency’s Empirical Analysis
549 U.S. 497 · 2007
Citation profile
622 federal appellate · 330 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,771 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016), Summers v. Earth Island Institute (2009)
622 federal appellate · 330 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 22 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2901 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 2 U.S.C. § 54 · 22 U.S.C. § 2304 · 28 U.S.C. § 1782 · 42 U.S.C. § 6201 (Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988) · 42 U.S.C. § 7403 · 42 U.S.C. § 7521 · 42 U.S.C. § 7601
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Baker v. Carr
Cited together with Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Warth v. Seldin · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,771 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a litigant is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“entitled to special solicitude in [the] standing analysis.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1)(A) The Administrator shall ... publish (and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of stationary sources. He shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. (B) Within one year after the inclusion of a category of stationary sources in a list under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall publish proposed regula tions, establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such category. The Administrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity for written comment on such proposed regulations. After considering such comments, he shall promulgate, within one year after such publication, such standards with such modifications as he deems appropriate. The Administrator shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise such standards following the procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards. Notwithstanding the requirements of the previous sentence, the Administrator need not review any such standard if the Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of such standard. Standards of performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon promulgation.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.