Supreme Court Delivers Major Blow to California’s Climate Mandates in Landmark Ruling

In a major legal setback for California’s environmental agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 7–2 in favor of the nation’s fuel producers, allowing them to move forward with a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of California’s ambitious electric vehicle (EV) mandates.

The decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, represents a significant victory for the energy industry and a challenge to Governor Gavin Newsom’s push to make California carbon-neutral by 2045 — a goal that includes requiring most new vehicles sold in the state to be electric by 2035.

Fuel Industry Gains Legal Standing

At the core of the case is California’s request for EPA authorization to enforce state-specific regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. These include a requirement that auto manufacturers produce a minimum percentage of electric vehicles for sale in California, alongside fleet-wide emissions standards.

Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, affirmed that the fuel manufacturers had the legal right — or standing — to challenge the EPA’s approval of these regulations. He emphasized that businesses affected by stringent federal or state rules must have access to judicial review.

“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The court’s ruling found that the companies behind the lawsuit had adequately shown that they are directly impacted by California’s rules and therefore have a constitutional right to challenge them under Article III.

Shifting EPA Stance Questioned

The opinion also took aim at the EPA’s inconsistent positions over the years regarding California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

“EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles,” Kavanaugh added.

This inconsistency, the court noted, only added to the confusion and justified further legal examination of the EPA’s decisions.

A Win for the Oil and Petrochemical Sector

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the trade group spearheading the lawsuit, welcomed the decision as a legal milestone.

“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” Thompson said in a statement. “California’s EV mandates are unlawful and bad for our country.”

Thompson criticized California’s approach as an overreach, arguing that Congress never gave the state — or the EPA — the authority to ban gas-powered vehicles or force automakers into electric vehicle production through regulatory maneuvering.

Broader Political Fallout

The ruling represents a broader political defeat for Governor Newsom, whose climate policies have become a national symbol of progressive environmentalism. The court’s decision follows another recent blow: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s ruling and allowed former President Donald Trump to retain control over California National Guard forces deployed in Los Angeles.

The deployment was challenged by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had ruled that Trump’s decision to federalize the Guard in California exceeded his authority and violated the Tenth Amendment, which limits federal power over state governments. However, the Ninth Circuit granted an emergency stay, siding with Trump.

Reacting to the appeals court’s decision, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform:

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

California’s Green Agenda Under Pressure

Together, the twin rulings have put Governor Newsom’s environmental and law enforcement strategies under intense scrutiny. With legal pressure mounting and political rivals seizing on the setbacks, Newsom’s potential aspirations for a 2028 presidential run may face additional hurdles.

California’s EV mandate — which many see as a template for similar efforts in other progressive states — is now at the center of a national legal battle that could reshape how far individual states can go in enforcing climate policy.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores a broader trend of judicial skepticism toward expansive regulatory interpretations — particularly when they impact entire industries or assert state-level power over nationwide markets.

For now, energy producers are celebrating a rare win at the nation’s highest court, while environmental advocates brace for what could be a wave of legal challenges aimed at slowing or undoing aggressive climate mandates across the country.