From a footnote in his dissent from Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05–1120, 127 S. Ct. 1438, ____ n.2 (Apr. 2, 2007) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
“Not only is EPA’s interpretation reasonable, it is far more plausible than the Court’s alternative. As the Court correctly points out, ‘all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,’ ante, at 26, would qualify as ‘physical, chemical, … substance[s] or matter which [are] emitted into or otherwise ente[r] the ambient air,’ 42 U. S. C. §7602(g). It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant.’ This reading of the statute defies common sense.”