The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that fossil fuel companies do in fact have standing to challenge a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waiver given to California, which allowed the state to set stricter limits on vehicle emissions and require automakers to increase the percentage of electric vehicles they produce.
The Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation and environmental advocacy group, swiftly denounced the decision.
"This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states' ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change."
While the Clean Air Act sets emission standards for new vehicles nationally, the EPA has granted California the ability to set tougher standards for in-state vehicle sales to combat air pollution.
In 2022, a lower court had ruled that a lawsuit brought by fossil fuel industry groups arguing that California's regulations could cause the fossil fuel industry financial harm did not have the necessary legal standing. The justices 7-2 ruling released on Friday overturned that lower court ruling.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who is considered liberal, sided with the conservative majority.
"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that oil industry profits must be protected even at the cost of destroying the climate that has sustained humanity for millennia. The 7-2 majority ruled for polluters, putting the rest of us at risk," Pettit added.
Even before the court's ruling, California's clean air waivers were under threat. Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a measure passed by Congress that would roll back the waivers, though California sued in response.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, but offered separate opinions.
According to Slate, Jackson authored a "furious" opinion in which she criticized the majority for deciding the case when the issue may soon be irrelevant, and accused them of bending the usual rules of standing to help fossil fuel companies.
"Also," wrote Jackson, "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests."
What's more, according to Jackson, "the court's remarkably lenient approach to standing in this case contrasts starkly with the stern stance it has taken in cases concerning the rights of ordinary citizens."
Reacting to the ruling, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) noted that it was fairly narrow and that the court declined to adopt a broader standing rule.
"While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself," said EDF'S general counsel Vickie Patton on Friday.
