In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations.
She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests."
With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it.
"This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote.
The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added.
The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said.
"Also, 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 added.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits.
Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process.
Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading.
Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others."
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue.
The bottom line, he added, is that the government "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."
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law whose scholarship pushes back on Jackson's theory, said it was notable that no other justices, including her two fellow liberals, signed on to her dissent.
"I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests," he said in an interview with NBC News. "It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups."
Adler, who Jackson cited in her dissent, said it can be "very simplistic" to classify cases as pro-business or anti-business simply because there can often be wealthy interests on both sides.
The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act.
In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver.
The Republican-controlled Congress voted earlier this month to revoke that waiver.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
35 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How Abortion Bans Are Affecting Where Women Live and Work
Alana Tedmon and her husband moved to the outskirts of Dallas in June 2022, attracted by the lower cost of living and proximity to family. That same month, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Texas followed by banning abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. 'It seemed like people were always trying to change the legislation around abortion every single year but I never thought it would really happen legitimately,' she said.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
How Trump's Travel Ban And Visa Restrictions Could Affect Hospitals And Public Health
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 26: A man bearing an upside down American flag watches as protesters gather ... More outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court issued an immigration ruling June 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court issued a 5-4 ruling upholding the Trump administration's policy imposing limits on travel from several primarily Muslim nations. (Photo by) Several hospitals throughout the country are currently without some international medical graduates (IMG) because of President Trump's travel band and visa restrictions. According to the travel ban, citizens from 12 foreign countries are barred from entering the United States, and citizens from seven other countries will also face restrictions, making it difficult for many doctors who have completed medical education in foreign countries to train in America. In addition, on May 27th, the Trump administration restricted certain visas like J-1 visas from being issued which allow foreign medical students to work and train in the United States. The pause on interviews for J-1 visas has since been lifted, but some IMGs have reported to the Associated Press that U.S. embassies have been slow to open interview slots, and some have not opened any. This comes at a critical time, since July 1st marked the first calendar day of medical residencies or training programs throughout the U.S. On July 1st, newly graduated medical students start medical training in their prospective fields such as internal medicine, emergency medicine and surgery; to name a few. Although it remains unclear exactly how many IMGs have had their residency start date delayed due to the travel ban or visa restrictions, nearly 7,000 foreign born IMGs matched or filled into U.S. programs in 2025. This represents nearly 17% of the entire incoming workforce of medical residents in 2025, according to the National Resident Matching Program. Without IMGs joining the medical workforce in America, the physician shortage will be exacerbated for the next decade. In fact, the U.S. will face a physician shortage of 86,000 doctors by 2036, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Less physicians means longer wait times in emergency rooms, delayed diagnoses and significant strain on safety-net hospitals. IMGs make up a critical component of the healthcare workforce, and without them, patient care is directly compromised. IMGs also choose residencies and take jobs in places where U.S. medical trainees tend not to go, according to National Resident Matching Program President Donna Lamb, as reported by the Associated Press. As an example, IMGs make up 40% of residents in internal medicine, a primary care field with a focus on preventing chronic conditions like diabetes, cancer and heart disease. In addition, IMGs play a critical role in serving underserved areas throughout America, providing primary care, cancer screening and emergency care to some of the U.S.'s most vulnerable population. According to a 2021 study published in Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, more than 64% of IMGs surveyed practiced in medically underserved areas and more than 45% practiced in rural areas. These foreign-grad doctors form the backbone of healthcare in rural America, and without them, the health of the 66 million Americans that are served by rural hospitals could be in jeopardy. Finally, Trump's travel ban could have a chilling effect on future foreign medical applicants to the U.S. Prospective physicians may be deterred from considering medical training programs in America given the challenges and hurdles present in securing visas. Not only will this amplify the physician shortage in the U.S., it will decrease the amount of culturally competent physicians that serve an increasingly diverse population in America. President Trump's travel ban, which has been enacted in the name of national security and public safety, could have serious consequences for public health and medical education. One thing remains certain- IMGs form a vital part of the healthcare workforce in the United States.
