The Supreme Court on June 20 sided 7–2 with fuel producers challenging California’s tough vehicle emissions standards.
The new ruling revives the producers’ lawsuit against the standards.
On June 12, President Donald Trump said that he had signed into law a congressional measure that blocks “California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The lead petitioner, Diamond Alternative Energy, is a subsidiary of Valero Energy Corp.
Other petitioners include American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Clean Fuels Development Coalition, Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, Energy Marketers of America, and several agriculture industry organizations.
Much of the discussion during the April 23 oral argument focused on standing and redressability, as opposed to the merits of the lawsuit itself.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.
Redressability, a key element of standing, is the ability of the courts to give a party the relief that it is seeking if it wins its case.
In April 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that California had the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.
The court held that the energy companies bringing the legal action could not demonstrate that they had standing to sue.
In their petition, the petitioners argued that they would suffer economic harm if California, whose state economy is large, were allowed to continue imposing vehicle emissions standards that are more stringent than those mandated by the federal government.
California’s policy stances are influential, and several other states have already adopted its regulatory framework for automobiles.
California says its climate-action policies are needed to drive down demand for liquid fuel.
The petition stated that California is mandating “100 percent electric vehicles by 2036” and that this policy has the effect of “forcing electrification of the country’s vehicle fleet.”
The state’s goal is supported by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, whose emissions and fuel economy standards “impose de facto electric-vehicle mandates in violation of their governing statutes,” according to the petition, which was filed in the final year of the Biden administration.
The companies say it is a problem that the federal Clean Air Act allows a single state—California—to establish emissions rules for vehicles.
To make its own rules, California has to be granted a federal waiver from the act’s requirements.
The federal government has been granting those waivers to the state for years.
In the petition, the energy companies criticized the regulatory independence that the Clean Air Act effectively gives the Golden State.
The companies stated that the EPA’s position is that the federal statute allows California “to operate as a quasi-federal regulator on global climate change.”
“There are serious constitutional concerns with a statute that allows only California to act as a junior-varsity EPA,” the petition said.
“The question whether California may set greenhouse-gas emission standards for itself and other states is undeniably major.”
In his opinion, Kavanaugh wrote that “the sole issue” before the court was whether the fuel producers have standing to pursue their lawsuit.
California and the EPA both dispute redressability, arguing that even if the regulations are voided, that doesn’t mean car manufacturers would make more gasoline-powered vehicles.
They argue that the California regulations “no longer have any impact because, in a free market, consumer demand for and manufacturers’ supply of electric vehicles would still supposedly exceed what the California regulations mandate,” the justice wrote.
“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” he wrote.
Kavanaugh wrote that based on Supreme Court precedents and the evidence in the judicial record, the fuel producers have standing to maintain their lawsuit.
His opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the D.C. Circuit and sent the case back to that court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed separate dissenting opinions.
In her dissent, Jackson wrote that the court didn’t need to issue a decision in the case at this time.
Instead of delaying a ruling until the EPA reassesses the Clean Air Act waiver it has granted to California, as the government had requested, “for some reason, in this case, we rejected the Government’s request and proceeded to render a decision anyway,” she said.
“I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,” she wrote.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared June 20, 2025, in The Epoch Times.
Photo: Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh