The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral arguments in a high-stakes battle over California’s authority to impose stricter vehicle emissions rules than the rest of the country, a case now shaped by a Trump administration push to roll back state-led climate initiatives.
At issue is whether a coalition of energy producers and royalty owners, including Diamond Alternative Energy, can sue over the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2022 decision to grant California’s Clean Air Act waiver. The waiver, reinstated under former President Joe Biden, allows the state to implement stricter vehicle emissions standards to boost the electric vehicle industry.
Critics have claimed the regulation creates a de facto national “electric vehicle mandate,” as over a dozen states follow California’s auto emission standards.
The justices agreed to weigh only whether the challengers have standing to sue — a procedural threshold that could determine whether similar regulatory challenges can proceed in the future.
But the case has taken on new significance since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, as Republicans have trained their sights on California’s regulations that aim to phase out gas-powered vehicles. The rules would ban the sale of new gas cars by 2035.
Earlier this month, House Republicans introduced three Congressional Review Act resolutions to undo California regulations on vehicles, including to reverse the EPA’s emission waiver. The measures are part of a larger effort by Republicans to undo Biden-era energy and climate regulations through the CRA. The special legislative process allows lawmakers to take a simple majority vote in both chambers to undo a regulation.
Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to challenge state climate laws that conflict with federal policy, explicitly targeting California’s policies.
The president has also called on the DOJ to reverse the previous administration’s posture, asking the Supreme Court earlier this year to pause related environmental cases while it reconsiders Biden-era policies.
The Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents royalty owners, argues that the EPA waiver undermines property rights and depresses demand for oil and gas, devastating rural economies and bypassing Congress.
“Unfortunately, the lower court dismissed the case on ‘standing’ grounds, holding that royalty owners were not the right party to bring suit,” MSLF said on its webpage about the case. “This case is about more than just emission standards. It’s about defending the constitutional protection of property rights against regulatory actions that could unfairly take away property without proper compensation.”
SUPREME COURT APPEARS POISED TO BACK OPT-OUTS FROM LGBT SCHOOL CONTENT
California Attorney General Rob Bonta last month filed a brief asking the high court to reaffirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing.
“Our solutions have encouraged advancements in cleaner automotive technologies, and improved the health and well-being of communities statewide, showing how strong environmental policies and economic growth go hand in hand,” Bonta said in a statement.
He added, “That’s why we intervened, to make sure there would be a strong defense of California’s authority. These challengers waited nearly a decade to bring this suit, and then they didn’t even show that they would benefit from increased sales if their suit succeeded.”
A ruling in the case is expected by June.