Supreme Court Rules Fuel Producers Can Contest California’s Emissions Regulations
The 7-2 ruling emphasized that it was not considering the substance of the dispute itself, but solely whether the producers had the legal standing to bring the lawsuit.
It’s been a rough go for the Democrats in California recently.
Over the course of the last few days, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the District Court injunction undoing President Donald Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard after riots and attacks on federal ICE agents enforcing federal immigraton laws.
Governor Gavin Newsom was reported to be “NAPAing” as Los Angeles burned again…these fires being man-caused conflagrations set by anti-ICE demonstrators.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (in a 7-2 decision, no less) that fuel producers have legal standing to challenge California’s vehicle emissions standards and electric vehicle (EV) requirements. California has spent the last several years promoting the state’s “net zero” insanity and endeavoring to inflict it on other states.
This decision revives a lawsuit brought by industry groups, including a subsidiary of Valero Energy and other fuel manufacturers, who argue that California’s stricter standards [enabled by a federal waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] harm their business interests by reducing demand for liquid fuels.
The justices in a 7-2 ruling overturned a lower court’s decision to throw out the lawsuit by a Valero Energy (VLO.N) subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations.
“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,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
🚨 BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court just struck a MASSIVE blow against the EPA and Radical Democrats climate agenda by allowing energy producers to challenge California’s EV emissions standards, citing economic harm from reduced gasoline demand.
Final vote 7-2. pic.twitter.com/50X2jWfmad
— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) June 20, 2025
SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit or the legality of the EPA’s waiver. Instead, it focused solely on whether the fuel producers could bring the case, concluding that they could because they were clearly being harmed by the emissions standards.
Writing for a seven-member majority on Friday, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the fuel producers would suffer harm from the waiver and so had standing to sue.
“Without California’s regulations in effect,” he wrote, “manufacturers would likely make more cars powered by gasoline and other liquid fuels, thereby increasing purchases of those fuels.”
Justice Kavanaugh stressed the limits of the ruling. “This case concerns only standing, not the merits,” he wrote. “E.P.A. and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending E.P.A.’s approval of the California regulations.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Jackson questioned the timing of the decision, noting that the EPA’s waiver could soon be withdrawn by a future administration, potentially rendering the case moot.
Jackson questioned why the court would “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.”
But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.
With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.
Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.
Let me add a few more liberal tears onto the mix, for your enjoyment.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment with the decision but vowed to continue the fight.
He said, “Congress intended for California to be able to regulate emissions from new vehicles sold in our state, and we remain firmly committed to advancing and implementing strong standards that safeguard public health and reduce climate pollution.”
The conservative Supreme Court has previously ruled against the EPA and environmental groups in similar cases, including decisions that limited the agency’s ability to regulate air pollution and wetlands.
It will be interesting to see if the fossil fuel industry can locate a court that can give its case a fair hearing.
The chances that it can are improving, as several states have already nixed or delayed plans to join California in green energy seppuku and, as noted above, the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind California’s waiver.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What do they call an environment where one cannot challenge the dictates of the ruling political party? Asking for a friend.
“The most secure elections ever..”
You mean “secured” elections?
Inasmuch as they still seem hellbent on going all EV, the fuel makers will be out regardless….at least until Commufornica realizes how stupid an idea that is. But Dems are a stubborn lot, and will insist on EV’s regardless.
The “standing” argument has been used as a club by Democrats for years. Push rules and regulations that bankrupt industries and force policy on people then when sued drag it out then settle after the damage has been done. It’s come to the point that I think cases once filed should have to be decided.
On the contrary, the need for standing is what prevents the courts from becoming dictators, as has happened in Israel. The only meaningful restraint of the judiciary is that a court cannot consider a question unless someone with standing brings it properly before it. If courts could act sua sponte there would be no stopping them and they’d be the real government.
As we’ve seen in the 6 months courts will do whatever they please standing or no standing,
Although legitimate, standing can still be weaponized by judges who block plaintiffs with (actual) standing by ruling they have none. Sentiment against the concept of standing is driven by judges who abuse the requirement.
And on that topic, true to form:
Apparently the Republicans are attempting to address the “out of control TRO” problem by inserting language in the BBB saying that petitioners looking for such a TRO have to pt up a sizable bond while the issue plays itself out.
This has raised the hackles of some “patriot groups” who see this as denial of the rights of the less wealthy (including themselves) who wish to challenge government overreach in other areas.
A good part of the problem is that 1) California thinks it rules the country, and 2) the Federal government lets it get away with it. California needs to be forcefully reminded that it is part of the United States, not in charge of it.
Ah, but ~is~ it part of the United States? Sure doesn’t act like it is. Or seem to want to be.
“liberal teats”?
No thanks.
Thanks for this info.
why do people continue to vote in communistnazzi loving scum??
P. T. Barnum told you.
The case is only moot if the ability to gain a future waiver is permanantly removed. Otherwise, the threat remains.
The madness is not about standing but about the EPA issuing waivers without the Congress amending the Environmental Protection Act. Yes, the EPA can set mpg requirements attached to federal law but federal law applies equally to all states — unless the Congress statutorily states otherwise.
California has the ability to affect commerce with these waivers and therefore should be exposed to federal law suits from all over the country. SCOTUS got it right.
I believe there’s a more fundamental consideration here.
State regulation of goods that move in interstate commerce is an infringement upon Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce. This is why California needed the permission of Congress to make its own regulations in the first place – otherwise California’s laws and policies would have been unconstitutional. If the permission is withdrawn, the authority to make such laws and regs goes away. The permissions allow California to cause the very sort of disruptions to interstate commerce that the authors of the Constitution intended to prevent by giving Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Dave, I’ve been saying for decades that the whole Califorina is Spayshul madness is a clearcut violation of the ICC. California canno set themselves up on some pedestal tha prevents vehicles first sold in other states being registered in Califorina. Wahington have stupidly declared Califorina’s rules rule here. Same issue.
Congress have the authority to enact laws and standards, but not when they prevent goods freely ,moving from one state into another.
How dare the energy industry insist on judicial process instead of being ruled by decree? Next thing you know, people will start wanting to be governed by the rule of law.
Subotai Bahadur
Sorry. A typo left italics on after the ‘e’ in dare. My fault.
Subotai Bahadur
No judgement. Keyboards are small and fingers are large…but your wisdom is vast!
So, any plans to moderate those posters whose opinions are half vast?