The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major setback to California’s climate agenda this week, issuing a ruling that allows the state’s fuel producers to press forward with their lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. In a 7–2 decision, the court aligned with the challengers and dealt a blow to California’s aggressive push toward electric vehicles and sweeping emissions regulations. Notably, one of the court’s liberal justices joined the conservative bloc in the majority opinion.

The case centers on California’s ambitious mandate that electric vehicles make up the overwhelming share of new car sales by 2035, a benchmark championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom as part of his plan to push the state toward full “carbon neutrality.” Fuel producers argue that the policy, along with related emissions standards, places impossible demands on their industry and violates federal law.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh underscored the central issue: the government cannot impose strict regulations on an industry while simultaneously preventing that industry from challenging those rules in court.

“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,” Kavanaugh wrote. He added that the fuel producers had demonstrated adequate legal standing to challenge EPA’s approval of California’s rules under Article III of the Constitution.

Kavanaugh also highlighted inconsistencies in the EPA’s legal reasoning over time, an issue that appeared to undermine the agency’s credibility. According to the opinion, the EPA repeatedly shifted its position on whether the Clean Air Act grants California the authority to impose greenhouse-gas-specific regulations on new motor vehicles.

---

The Ruling Follows Trump’s Recent Moves Against California’s Climate Policies

This Supreme Court decision comes shortly after President Donald Trump enacted three resolutions rolling back central pillars of California’s climate framework. Those actions marked one of the most significant federal challenges yet to Newsom’s environmental agenda, widely known as one of the most sweeping in the nation and a signature piece of his political identity.

Newsom, considered by many a potential 2028 presidential contender, faces mounting legal and political pressure as courts and federal policymakers scrutinize the boundaries of California’s regulatory authority.

Kavanaugh’s opinion also outlined the specific regulations at issue. The case traces back to California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new emissions standards. Under these rules, automakers selling vehicles in the state must limit the average greenhouse gas emissions of their fleets and produce a designated percentage of electric vehicles.

---

Industry Applauds the Decision

Fuel producers celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling as a long-overdue victory in their fight against what they describe as government overreach.

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the group behind the lawsuit, told the Daily Caller that the decision affirms their right to challenge policies they believe exceed California’s legal authority.

“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” Thompson said. He argued that California’s rules misinterpret federal law, noting, “Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles, or ban new gas car sales.”

---

More Legal Trouble for Newsom

The Supreme Court ruling was only part of a rough news cycle for California’s governor. In a separate high-profile case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and allowed President Trump to retain operational control of the California National Guard.

Trump praised the ruling on Truth Social, writing that the decision affirmed his authority to deploy the Guard in Los Angeles, where he argued that federal assistance had been essential to maintaining public safety.

“If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now,” Trump wrote. “We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

Earlier that same day, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had ruled that Trump acted unconstitutionally when he federalized Guard units to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations and protect federal property, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment. Breyer argued that Trump had exceeded both his statutory powers and the constitutional boundaries governing the National Guard.

The Ninth Circuit’s swift intervention, however, put Breyer’s ruling on hold while the appeals process plays out.