- Supreme Court revives oil industry lawsuit against California’s emissions standards.
- The court’s decision doesn’t rule on the suit itself, but allows it to proceed.
- Dissenting justices express concern over favoring “moneyed interests.”
- Decision comes amid broader political battles over EV mandates.
The court’s decision addresses fuel makers’ standing to sue, meaning does the oil and gas industry have the right to challenge California’s stringent emissions standards in court? In a 7-2 ruling, the justices said yes, reviving a lawsuit that questions California’s authority to set its own rules for vehicle emissions.
The Heart of the Matter
At the core of the legal battle is the fuel industry’s argument that California, along with the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden, is overstepping its authority. The industry claims that they are misusing a 1970s smog-fighting rule to tackle climate change, an issue they believe is beyond the scope of the original regulation.
Justice brett M. Kavanaugh highlighted the industry’s stance, noting that California’s emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem…but instead were designed to address global climate change.”
While the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits of the lawsuit itself, Kavanaugh explained that fuel makers have the right to sue becuase California’s regulations could directly harm their profits: “The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line.”
Dissenting Voices
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority opinion.
Jackson questioned the court’s decision to “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already)… This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”
Political Undercurrents
The Supreme Court’s decision arrives amid a larger political showdown between California and some Republicans regarding electric vehicle mandates.
Backed by President Trump, the House and Senate have already moved to block the Biden management’s efforts to grant California the power to enforce stricter “zero emissions” standards for cars and trucks.
Trump has accused California of trying to dictate national policy on electric vehicles. During a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he asserted that the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”
He added, “Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation.”
Reactions to the ruling
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta responded to the ruling by saying “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over.While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”
Some environmental advocates fear the decision could embolden future legal challenges from industry groups.
“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” warned David Pettit, an attorney at the Centre for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”
