The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an enormously consequential ruling on emissions regulations. This decision precedes California’s unique authority to enforce more stringent vehicle emissions standards than what is allowed under federal rules. The justices ruled 7-2 in favor of allowing fuel producers to challenge California’s Clean Air Act waiver. This coalition consists of heavy hitters, such as Valero Energy, and other big industry members. The court’s decision has raised concerns regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions and protect air quality across state lines.
That debate zeroed in on California’s unprecedented exception. This provided the state with the authority to implement more stringent vehicle emissions standards to combat harmful air pollution. More than 100 waivers have been granted under the Clean Air Act. This has allowed California to spearhead the adoption of stronger regulations than what is federally required. Representatives for the fuel industry contended that reinstating this waiver was outside of the EPA’s jurisdiction. They argued that it eventually proved detrimental to their business practices.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned the majority opinion. He stressed that businesses should always have the opportunity to challenge regulations that they feel are unfair. He stated,
“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.”
Implications of the Ruling
The case follows a string of other restrictive rulings from the Supreme Court, this time limiting the EPA’s permitting authority as a whole. In 2022, the court finally acted. It limited the agency’s authority to cut carbon pollution from existing coal and gas-fired power plants through the Clean Air Act. In 2023, the court continued to chip away at the EPA’s ability to protect all waters and wetlands and fight water pollution. Most recently, in January 2024, it blocked the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions affecting neighboring states.
Taken together, these decisions signal yet another step in the Supreme Court’s long game to limit the EPA’s ability to enforce environmental regulations. We hope that the “Good Neighbor” rule will help address air quality issues that can cross into downwind states. Yet as above, this underscores the court’s persistent reluctance to support sweeping regulatory initiatives aimed at fighting pollution.
Dissenting Opinions
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from this dangerous ruling. Here’s what they said about its ramifications for our ability to protect public health and the environment. Their strong dissent is encouraging because it reveals a rift at the court between the needs of industry and the needs of regulatory oversight.
There are serious implications with this ruling that extends well beyond California. It creates a strong precedent that will carry forward to other states’ emission regulations related to federal standards. The case illustrates ongoing tensions between state autonomy in environmental policy and federal regulatory authority, particularly in light of increasingly urgent climate challenges.
