The immediate outcome of Massachusetts v EPA was that the court ruled in favor of Massachusetts in a vote of 5-4, citing that the rise in sea levels associated with global warming have already harmed and will continue to harm the Massachusetts coast line.

The long-term consequences are that firms such as the EPA must work to more regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that Massachusetts will continue to suffer rising sea levels. The other states who petitioned with Massachusetts: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington will also continue to suffer from greenhouse gas emissions. We all will.

Standing is what determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit (plaintiff) has a legal right to do so. A plaintiff has standing if they have a personal stake in the outcome of the case, if they do not have standing the case will be dismissed immediately. For example, if you went to a haunted house and signed a liability waiver before enter the haunted house and then suffered a heart attack inside the haunted house which caused permanent damage you do have a personal stake in the case because of your heart attack, but since you signed the liability waiver you do not have a legal right to sue and your case would be dismissed.

The proof required for standing includes injury, causation, and redressability.

In the Massachusetts v. EPA case, the injury was stated as the harms associated with climate change are serious and well-recognized. The National Research Council Report identifies several environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, and the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years. The injury in this case specifically pertains to the coastal changes Massachusetts has accrued as a result of climate change citing that they have lost 10cm to 20cm of coastal land over the 20th century alone due to climate change. Injury must be concrete and particular to the plaintiff, must show interference with established constitutional, statutory or common law rights, and can be economic or non-economic.

Causation in the Massachusetts v. EPA was cited as man-made greenhouse gases as a causation of global warming. Causation is the direct casual connection between the plaintiff and the defendant’s action. It cannot be the result of a third party.

Redressability in the Massachusetts v. EPA was cited as a reduction in domestic greenhouse gas emissions to slow the effects of climate change. Redressability must be likely that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury. It can apply to direct energy or to help to stop a future threatened injury.