The Green Mandate Meets Its Match: A Supreme Court Reckoning
Supreme Court Delivers Stunning Blow to California’s Green Energy Agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a major setback to California’s ambitious climate agenda — and, in a surprising twist, even one liberal justice sided with the conservative majority to make it happen.
In a 7–2 ruling, the Court cleared the way for California’s energy producers to move forward with a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The decision challenges the agency’s approval of the state’s sweeping electric vehicle (EV) mandates, a cornerstone of Governor Gavin Newsom’s plan to eliminate fossil fuels and push the state toward “carbon neutrality” by 2035.
At the center of the case is California’s requirement that nearly all new cars sold by 2035 be electric or zero-emission — a mandate critics say exceeds the state’s authority under federal law.
Kavanaugh: States Cannot Hide Behind Federal Bureaucracy
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh underscored that government agencies cannot escape legal scrutiny simply by claiming their actions indirectly affect businesses.
“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.
He added that fuel producers “clearly established standing” to challenge the EPA’s decision to greenlight California’s plan — an acknowledgment that state and federal climate regulations have direct economic and operational impacts on energy producers nationwide.
Kavanaugh also took aim at the EPA’s shifting legal rationale, noting that the agency has “repeatedly altered its legal position” on whether the Clean Air Act allows California to impose greenhouse gas limits on vehicles. That inconsistency, the Court suggested, weakened the EPA’s defense.
California’s Mandate Under Fire
California first submitted its EV regulations for federal approval in 2012, requiring automakers to both cap average emissions across their fleets and ensure that a certain percentage of new vehicles sold in the state are fully electric.
Supporters of the policy argue it’s essential for combating climate change and driving innovation in clean energy. Critics, however, view it as a heavy-handed effort that could devastate traditional fuel industries, increase car prices, and strain the state’s already fragile power grid.
“This decision confirms what we’ve said all along — that California overstepped its authority,” said Chet Thompson, president and CEO of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the group behind the lawsuit. “Congress never gave California the power to mandate electric vehicles or ban gas-powered cars. This ruling restores fairness and common sense.”
Thompson called the Court’s decision a “major victory for workers, consumers, and energy security,” saying it ensures that “federal environmental policy cannot be dictated by one state’s political agenda.”
Trump Administration’s Broader Climate Reversal
The ruling arrives just weeks after President Donald Trump signed three resolutions targeting what he called “California’s extremist climate regulations.” The moves, which dismantled key elements of the state’s green energy framework, were widely seen as a direct challenge to Newsom’s environmental leadership — and a potential blow to his expected 2028 presidential ambitions.
Newsom, who has positioned California as a model for progressive environmental governance, vowed to continue his state’s pursuit of “clean energy transformation” despite federal pushback.
But political analysts say the Supreme Court’s decision — especially with one liberal justice joining the conservative bloc — could have lasting implications for how far states can go in setting independent climate policies.
“This ruling may not just reshape California’s energy laws,” said legal analyst Rachel Stinson, “it could redefine the balance of power between federal agencies and the states when it comes to environmental regulation.”
A Second Defeat for Newsom at the Supreme Court
This marks the second major Supreme Court setback for Newsom in recent months. In a separate decision, the Court sided with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), overturning limits on the agency’s ability to conduct immigration enforcement operations in California.
That case, decided 6–3, suspended a lower court’s ruling that restricted ICE agents from conducting so-called “roving” sweeps in Los Angeles neighborhoods based on criteria like language or location. Critics argued the practice led to racial profiling, while supporters said it was necessary for effective enforcement.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion defending brief, targeted interviews with individuals who meet “common-sense indicators” of being in the country illegally, such as working at informal labor sites or lacking English proficiency.
In a dissent, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson condemned the ruling, warning that it could normalize racial profiling. “We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job,” the trio wrote.
The Bigger Picture
Together, the two rulings reflect a clear shift in the Court’s stance toward both state-level environmental policies and federal immigration limits — signaling a broader rollback of progressive state initiatives under the Trump administration.
For now, California’s clean-energy vision faces its toughest challenge yet. And while Newsom vows to keep pushing forward, the Supreme Court’s message was unmistakable: no state, however powerful, can unilaterally rewrite federal law.