The headline in The New York Times was:  “Justices Uphold Emission Limits on Big Industry.”  The story, written by Adam Liptak, began:

In a big win for environmentalists, the Supreme Court on Monday effectively endorsed the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants, even as it criticized what it called the adm inistration’s overreaching.

. . . .

“E.P.A. is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in summarizing the decision from the bench. “It sought to regulate sources it said were responsible for 86 percent of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide. Under our holdings, E.P.A. will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent of those emissions.”

The headline in The Washington Post read:  “Supreme Court: EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, with some limits.”

But, others read the opinion differently.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court limits greenhouse gas regulations.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has a blog post titled, “Supreme Court limits EPA power to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.”

The Washington Times has a news update headlined, “Supreme Court hits Obama’s global warming agenda.”

So if you want to make up your own mind, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in part and announced the judgment of the Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1146.  Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.  And Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas joined.

You can access the oral argument via this link.