Fuel firms can challenge California's emission limits, supreme court rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Guardian

Fri 20 Jun 2025 10.24 EDT
Last modified on Fri 20 Jun 2025 10.25 EDT


Fossil fuel companies are able to challenge California’s ability to set stricter standards reducing the amount of polluting coming from cars, the US supreme court has ruled in a case that is set to unravel one of the key tools used to curb planet-heating emissions in recent years.

The conservative-dominated supreme court voted by seven to two to backa challenge by oil and gas companies, along with 17 Republican-led states, to a waiver that California has received periodically from the federal government since 1967 that allows it to set tougher standards than national rules limiting pollution from cars. The state has separately stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035.

Although states are typically not allowed to set their own standards aside from the federal Clean Air Act, California has been given unique authority to do so via a waiver that has seen it become a pioneer in pushing for cleaner cars. Other states are allowed to copy California’s stricter standard, too.

But oil and gas companies, as well as Republican politicians, have complained about the waiver, arguing that it caused financial harm. The waiver was removed during Donald Trump’s first term but then reinstated by Joe Biden’s administration. Trump is, again, looking into whether to revoke the waiver.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/20/supreme-court-ruling-california-emission-limits

---

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-7_8m58.pdf

[Lovie777]

1. Geez, California just sorta cleaned up some of the air pollution .......

I know since I live here.

[underpants]

3. "...with California emissions" as we all learned on The Price is Right

[Basso8vb]

2. I don't ever want to hear another fucking republican say a fucking thing about "states rights" ever again.

We Californians are tired of the bullshit.

[moniss]

4. California does have another tool they can

use that the SC can say nothing about. That is the state tax on gasoline. If California wants to move that from being less than $1.00 per gallon to being $3.00 or even higher there is nothing the courts or the oil companies can legitimately do to stop them. This would encourage people to switch to zero emissions vehicles while also providing revenue to the state to put in charging infrastructure and even offer rebates on vehicle purchases to lower income groups.

There are of course illegitimate things the courts and oil companies can do to thwart California in taking this approach. They could issue injuctions and then drag out the process in the courts for years of ping-ponging a purposely bad decision on a technicality up and down through the appellate system and SC and never really getting to the merits. The oil companies for example could have various "accidents" leading to spills etc. that a GQP managed EPA could let them off the hook for the cost of cleanup but the damage to California would remain. Other petrochemicals used by industry and consumers could be labeled as "Not for Sale in California". A manufacturer of a product can't be forced to sell a product to retailers/wholesalers in this or that state. If they found one of their wholesalers/retailers in Colorado for example was selling into California they could choke off the supply to the offending company in Colorado.

[The Mouth]

6. Yeah, fuck the poor and working class

I hope you enjoy your Tesla.

[moniss]

7. Apparently you didn't understand about using some of the revenue to rebate back to the

lower income groups.

[The Mouth]

14. I understand about working people

Who have to DRIVE to get to work, and sometimes - to the horror of soi-disant PC elites even drive big, heavy trucks, to fix houses and build things.

I wish that anyone who thinks gasoline should be over $2 a gallon end up homeless, hungry, cold, living under a bridge and knowing how despised they are by people who actually build, clean and repair things.

[moniss]

15. You still don't understand how an excise tax can be structured to

mitigate any problems for the people you mention. It's done all the time.

[SupportSanity]

5. Wow. There is ALWAYS another step lower to go.

there is no bottom.

[Polybius]

8. Kagan voted for this?

From the article:

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.

[Miguelito Loveless]

9. That was my first thought

How very disappointing.

[Polybius]

10. Once in a while, she votes with the conservatives

Here's a recent DU post where she did it again:

Elena Kagan just voted with the conservatives, 7-2 decision (re: Legal Protections for 500,000 Migrants)

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Compared to Sotomayor and Jackson

she has been more "centrist". She is also assigned to oversee the 9th Circuit (which includes California) so may have heard all kinds of arguments over the past bunch of years related to this subject since taking that over.

[Karasu]

12. Why the fuck do they want the "freedom" to live in a polluted-ass country filled with even more health risks than we

already have?

Oh, right. The only thing that matters in this fascist shithole is money. Silly me.

[Nigrum Cattus]

13. So, "financial harm" is more important than physical harm ?

It's written in BIG letters "We the People"
Not We the Corporations !