revived the industry\u2019s lawsuit<\/a> and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California\u2019s strict emissions standards. <\/p>\nThe suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century. <\/p>\n
California\u2019s new emissions standards \u201cdid not target a local California air-quality problem \u2014 as they say is required by the Clean Air Act \u2014 but instead were designed to address global climate change,\u201d Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry\u2019s position. <\/p>\n
The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state\u2019s rule. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,\u201d Kavanaugh said. <\/p>\n
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed. <\/p>\n
Jackson questioned why the court would \u201crevive 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans. <\/p>\n
With Trump\u2019s 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 \u201czero emissions\u201d cars and trucks. <\/p>\n
Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation\u2019s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n
In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures \u201cwill prevent California\u2019s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cOur Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
In response to Friday\u2019s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said \u201cthe fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California\u2019s authority under the Clean Air Act.\u201d<\/p>\n
Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,\u201d said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity\u2019s Climate Law Institute. \u201cThis decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states\u2019 ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n
Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON\u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":169,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[276,288,286,285,281,283,284,282,287,280,279,289,50,290,278,277,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-168","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-california","10":"tag-california-regulation","11":"tag-clean-air-act","12":"tag-climate-change","13":"tag-court","14":"tag-decision","15":"tag-electric-vehicle","16":"tag-emission-standard","17":"tag-fuel-maker","18":"tag-gas-industry","19":"tag-gop","20":"tag-measure","21":"tag-news","22":"tag-state","23":"tag-supreme-court","24":"tag-trump","25":"tag-united-states","26":"tag-unitedstates","27":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114717646823140775","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}