Supreme Court ruling could bring fresh risks to California EV rules
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that fuel producers have standing to challenge EPA approval of California vehicle emissions and electric vehicle policies.
Why it matters: The 7-2 decision enables more lines of attack against California officials, who are already battling GOP and Trump 2.0 efforts to thwart rules that go beyond federal standards.
Disputes over California's vehicle rules are a big deal, especially as the state defends separate rules — not directly at stake here — to phase out sales of gas-powered cars by 2035.
It's the country's largest auto market and other states, under the Clean Air Act, have discretion to follow its policies.
Driving the news: The ruling, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, overturns an appellate decision on standing, siding with fuel producers who say they're harmed by the "clean car" rules.
But it doesn't address the merits of the EPA Clean Air Act waiver issued in 2022 that reinstated rules first issued in 2012. (The ruling notes that President Obama's EPA had approved a waiver that was rescinded under Trump in 2019.)
The rules address tailpipe emissions, and automakers' EV manufacturing shares through model year 2025.
State of play: California had successfully challenged gasoline and ethanol producers' standing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit, but Kavanaugh harshly criticized California's reasoning.
"The regulations likely cause the fuel producers' monetary injuries because reducing gasoline and diesel fuel consumption is the whole point of the regulations," he wrote for the majority.
"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," Kavanaugh wrote.
The other side: The Environmental Defense Fund, which supports California's rules, emphasized that today's high court decision is narrow.
"While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself," EDF general counsel Vickie Patton said in a statement.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement that he's disappointed with today's ruling, but added: "[W]e will continue to vigorously defend California's authority under the Clean Air Act."
The intrigue: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent, said she feared the decision would further fuel perceptions that the court is overly sympathetic to corporate interests.
"For one thing, it could have denied certiorari, recognizing that one of the core components of California's emissions program—the electric-vehicle mandate—is about to sunset," she wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a separate dissent.
What we're watching: How and whether it influences disputes over EPA's 2024 blessing of California's separate rules to end gas-powered car sales in 10 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
After Supreme Court term, Chief Justice Roberts shrugs off ‘venting' by those who lost
Speaking a day after the Supreme Court ended its term with a burst of high-profile decisions, Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday warned 'political people' against criticizing judges and shrugged off critics if they are 'venting' just because they lost. Without addressing the court's blockbuster decisions, including the high-profile ruling limiting the power of courts to act as a check on President Donald Trump, Roberts stressed the importance of an independent judiciary and warned against politicians expressing hostility toward jurists. 'I've been compelled over the past few years to make statements about people on one side of the aisle – their views on judges – and on the other side,' Roberts told a conference of judges meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina. 'It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who's doing his or her job is part of the problem.' A few months ago, an audience listening to Roberts' remarks might have read a subtle message about Trump between those lines. In March, the chief justice issued a striking statement pushing back on White House talking points that increasingly targeted judges – including with threats to impeach those who ruled against Trump. But more recently, Roberts and his conservative colleagues on the court have given the president far more reasons to celebrate than complain. The most significant example of that landed Friday, when a 6-3 majority backed Trump in his months-long fight over nationwide court orders that have paused many of his controversial executive orders. Democrats and left-leaning groups decried that ruling on Friday, arguing it kneecapped the ability of courts to stop a president's policy even if it violates the law. 'The danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that, and we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work,' said Roberts, who was speaking to a conference organized by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. 'I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind.' Speaking with Judge Albert Diaz, the chief judge of the 4th Circuit, Roberts recognized that the court had dealt with with six major cases on its final day – more than usual. In addition to the ruling on nationwide injunctions, the court also sided with religious parents who want to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ books in schools and upheld a Texas law that requires age verification for pornographic websites. 'Things were a little crunched toward the end this year,' Roberts said, suggesting the court might 'try to space it out a little better next year, I suppose.' Taking criticism over the court's opinions, Roberts said, is par for the course. But the chief justice also said that 'usually' such criticism has more to do with the fact that a party lost rather than any sense they didn't get a fair hearing. 'It's not the judge's fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this,' Roberts said. 'If it's just venting because you lost, then that's not terribly helpful.'
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Persian Jews find refuge in ‘Tehrangeles'
Persian Jews find refuge in 'Tehrangeles' CNN's Nick Watt reports from Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, situated in a neighborhood known as "Tehrangeles" for its population of Iranians and Persian Jews. 01:06 - Source: CNN Vertical Top News 16 videos Persian Jews find refuge in 'Tehrangeles' CNN's Nick Watt reports from Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, situated in a neighborhood known as "Tehrangeles" for its population of Iranians and Persian Jews. 01:06 - Source: CNN Trump reacts to win at the Supreme Court President Trump thanked conservative Supreme Court justices and explained what he plans to do next after the Court backed his effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. 00:46 - Source: CNN Supreme Court backs parents who want to opt out of LGBTQ+ curriculum The Supreme Court on Friday backed a group of religious parents who want to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ books in the classroom, another major legal win for religious interests at the conservative high court. 00:52 - Source: CNN Supreme Court limits ability of judges to stop Trump The Supreme Court backed President Donald Trump's effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. However, it signaled that the president's controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced. 01:32 - Source: CNN What we know ahead of the Bezos-Sanchez wedding After a stormy evening in Venice, CNN's Melissa Bell explains why details remain closely guarded ahead of the Bezos-Sanchez wedding. 01:25 - Source: CNN See moment suspect lights fire on Seoul subway CCTV footage released by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office captures the moment a man lit a fire on a busy subway in the South Korean capital last month. The footage, from May 31, shows passengers running away after the suspect doused the floor of the train carriage with flammable liquid before setting it alight. Reuters reports that according to the prosecutors' office, six people were injured. The prosecutor's office says it charged the 67-year-old man with attempted murder and arson. 00:48 - Source: CNN Hear Zohran Mamdani's response to concerns by the wealthy over his tax plan CNN's Erin Burnett speaks with New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani about concerns over taxing the city's wealthy to fund his proposed initiatives, and whether it will cause them to leave the city. 02:27 - Source: CNN Details emerge of secret diplomatic efforts to restart Iran talks CNN's Kylie Atwood reports on The Trump administration discussing possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds. 01:11 - Source: CNN How Diddy's body language was 'different' in court today CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister reports on Sean "Diddy" Combs' family in court for closing arguments in his criminal trial and a notable difference in Combs' body language. 01:18 - Source: CNN Anna Wintour steps down as Vogue editor-in-chief Editor-in-chief of Vogue, Anna Wintour, is stepping down and seeking a replacement, the magazine's publisher Condé Nast confirmed to CNN. She will shift to a role of global chief content officer, where she will oversee every brand's global operations. 00:34 - Source: CNN Fireball spotted across the sky A 'daytime fireball' was caught on video in the sky over South Carolina – causing a sonic boom, according to the American Meteor Society. CNN has reached out to emergency management officials in North Carolina and Tennessee, as well as NASA for comment. 00:36 - Source: CNN Gen. Caine shares video of 'bunker buster' bomb test At a press conference about the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, shared video of 'bunker buster' bomb test and shared information about what they know about the strike. 01:05 - Source: CNN Gen. Caine says moment after strikes gave him chills At a press conference about the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, discusses the pilots who carried out the strikes and the reactions from their families after they returned home. 01:09 - Source: CNN 'Daddy's home:' Trump leans into NATO chief comment NATO Chief Mark Rutte got the world's attention after referring to President Trump as "daddy" after he used the analogy of two children fighting to describe the conflict between Iran and Israel. In a press conference, Rutte, explained his reason for using the term "daddy." Trump spoke about the moment at a press conference, and the White House leaned into the term in a social media post. 00:50 - Source: CNN Trump's team credits him with creating a decades-old phrase White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt falsely claimed that President Trump came up with the phrase "peace through strength." CNN's Abby Phillip reports on how the phrase has been used for decades. 01:22 - Source: CNN Cuomo called Mamdani after conceding NYC mayoral primary New York state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani was on the brink of a stunning Democratic primary win Tuesday for New York City mayor, with his top challenger, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceding the race. 00:38 - Source: CNN
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
