Supreme Court ruling could bring fresh risks to California EV rules
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 (The ruling notes that President Obama's EPA had approved a waiver that was rescinded under Trump in 2019.)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
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
6 in 10 voters view Democrats negatively: WSJ poll
The Democratic Party is viewed negatively by 63 percent of American voters — the lowest approval rating of the party in more than 30 years of The Wall Street Journal's surveys — according to a new poll from the newspaper. The survey found that while voters disapproved of President Trump's handling of a variety of issues, they generally said they trusted Republicans more than Democrats to take care of those issues in Congress. On tariffs, for instance, voters disapproved of Trump's policies by 17 percentage points, but trusted Republican lawmakers more than Democrats on the issue by seven points. Only 8 percent of voters viewed Democrats 'very favorably' in the poll. President Trump himself had an approval rating of 46 percent. The Wall Street Journal poll follows a survey from CNN released Thursday which found that just 28 percent of voters viewed the Democrats favorably. Democrats are confronting widespread voter malaise and perceptions that the party is listless ahead of the 2026 midterms as key parts of the party's national infrastructure have been rocked by infighting. Still, they are seeking to capitalize on Trump's more unpopular policies. They hope the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' with tax cuts favoring the wealthy alongside significant cuts to Medicaid and other social services, could galvanize voters. A slight majority — 52 percent — of voters in Friday's Journal poll disapproved of the bill. The ongoing controversy over the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a flashpoint for MAGA voters that Democrats have sought to exploit — may also come into play as members of Congress head home for the August recess. The Journal's poll found that voters were highly skeptical that the Justice Department had thoroughly investigated the issue, with 65 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans saying they had 'no confidence' in the department's review. The poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted between July 16 and July 20 with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. It was conducted by Democratic pollster John Anzalone and GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio.
Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
White House Responds After Judge Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House issued a defiant statement on Friday after a judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking the third time a court has done so since a critical Supreme Court ruling in June. Why It Matters Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The Supreme Court in June blocked judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, though it left an exception for class-action lawsuits, which multiple plaintiffs subsequently filed. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. President Donald Trump faces the media after arriving at Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, Scotland, on July 25. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Friday that the nationwide injunction he granted to more than a dozen states who sued over the order is still in effect because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press that the administration expects to be "vindicated on appeal." "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson told the news outlet. Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued in the case that Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. But Sorokin pushed back, taking aim at the Trump administration for failing to explain how a narrower injunction would work in practice. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," Sorokin wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." The New Jersey federal judge also wrote that he has "no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question" of whether Trump's order is constitutional. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." Sorokin's is the third court to block or uphold a block on Trump's order since last month's Supreme Court ruling that carved out an exception for the class-action challenges. Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement. A federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the order from going into effect nationwide in a ruling earlier this month. The judge in that case, Joseph LaPlante, paused his decision to give the administration a chance to appeal. But it did not do so, meaning his order went into effect last week. What People Are Saying Sorokin said in his 23-page ruling on Friday: "Despite the defendants' chosen path, the Court — aided substantially by the plaintiffs' meticulous factual and legal submissions — undertook the review required of it by [June's Supreme Court ruling] and considered anew whether its original order swept too broadly." He added: "After careful consideration of the law and the facts, the Court answers that question in the negative." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who led the case before Sorokin, said in a statement: "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." What Happens Next The case will almost certainly make its way back up to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and has handed the Trump administration more than a dozen critical victories so far this year.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas congressional candidate arrested during heated redistricting hearing
Congressional candidate Isaiah Martin was forcibly removed and arrested during a Thursday hearing in the Texas State Capitol on redistricting after refusing to yield the microphone during public comment. 'It is a shame,' Martin yelled as he was escorted out. 'You should all be ashamed.' Texas Republicans are pushing to redraw the state's maps after pressure from the Trump administration. They have not yet released a proposed map, which could re-define congressional districts to give the GOP a leg up in the 2026 midterms. Martin, a Democrat, was speaking in opposition to the redistricting efforts, which he called 'illegal gerrymandering,' when he went over his two-minute time limit. State Rep. Cody Vasut (R), who chaired the hearing, asked the sergeant-at-arms to remove Martin. The candidate's brother said Friday that the charges against Martin had been dropped and that he would be freed from custody later that night. Martin faced charges for disrupting the meeting, trespassing and resisting arrest, local media reported. Martin is running in a November special election for the seat vacated after Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. The seat had been previously held by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), who also died in office. Martin was formerly a top aide to the congresswoman and has been endorsed by her daughter, who chairs his campaign. In a post on the social media platform X prior to the hearing, Martin said Democrats could retaliate against the GOP's redistricting by making their own moves to redraw the maps. 'Blue states will now RUTHLESSLY gerrymander out Republicans to counteract this insanity,' he wrote. 'If rules are good for Republicans, they're good for us!'
