The Supreme Court recently made a decision that has raised eyebrows.  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for her liberal views, voiced her disapproval.  She argued that the court's ruling seemed to favor big businesses, particularly those in the fuel industry.  The court had sided with fuel producers who wanted to challenge California's clean vehicle emissions regulations.  This ruling came as a 7-2 decision.

    The court's decision has sparked concerns.  Many people already view the Supreme Court as being too friendly to corporate interests.  This ruling could make that perception even worse.  Justice Jackson pointed out that the case might not even matter anymore.  The Trump administration had reversed many of Biden's environmental policies, including California's electric vehicle mandates.  So, why did the court bother to rule on it?

    The case itself was about whether fuel producers had the right to challenge the EPA's approval of California's emissions regulations.  Justice Jackson argued that the court's decision could make it easier for the fuel industry to challenge environmental regulations in the future.  This could be a big problem for efforts to combat climate change.

    The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.  This majority has often been skeptical of broad government regulations.  They have made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits.  Last year, the court even overturned a 40-year precedent that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process.

    Some legal experts have pushed back against the idea that the court is too friendly to big business.  They argue that such allegations are misleading.  However, Justice Jackson's dissent highlights a valid concern.  The court seems more willing to hear cases involving powerful interests than those involving ordinary citizens.

    Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, responded to Jackson's claims.  He argued that the court's review of standing cases disproves the suggestion that it favors moneyed interests.  He pointed to several recent rulings where liberal justices were in the majority.

    The underlying case was about the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards.  California has a historic role in regulating emissions.  The law allows the EPA to give California a waiver from nationwide standards so it can adopt its own.  The case focused on a request made by California in 2012.  The Republican-controlled Congress voted to revoke that waiver.

The Supreme Court's Green Light for Big Oil

Actions