Supreme Court Delivers Major Setback to California’s Green Energy Mandates

In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that California fuel producers have the right to move forward with a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the state’s aggressive electric vehicle mandates. The 7-2 decision marks a serious setback for Governor Gavin Newsom’s sweeping climate policies and has ignited fresh debate over federal versus state environmental regulation.

The lawsuit targets California’s plan to phase out gas-powered vehicle sales and dramatically increase electric vehicle (EV) adoption by 2035—central to the state’s broader goal of achieving carbon neutrality. At issue is whether the EPA’s approval of these state-level rules violates federal law, especially in the absence of clear congressional authorization.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made it clear the Court believes the fuel producers have a legitimate basis to challenge the regulations.

“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 further criticized the EPA for inconsistencies in its legal stance, highlighting how the agency has repeatedly shifted its interpretation of the Clean Air Act regarding California’s authority to impose its own emissions standards.

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

The ruling does not immediately overturn California’s EV mandates but gives energy companies legal standing to argue that the EPA’s approval of the state’s rules was unlawful. This opens the door to a broader legal battle that could shape the future of vehicle emissions policy in the United States.

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers—the industry group that filed the lawsuit—praised the Supreme Court’s decision.

“This is a landmark victory for fuel manufacturers and American consumers,” Thompson said in a statement. “California’s electric vehicle mandates are not only unlawful but harmful to energy reliability and economic freedom. Congress did not grant California the authority to unilaterally dictate vehicle emissions standards for the nation.”

The ruling arrives just weeks after former President Donald Trump signed a series of executive actions aimed at rolling back what he described as “extreme and unlawful” environmental policies. These include resolutions targeting various aspects of California’s green energy strategy, from vehicle emissions standards to renewable energy mandates.

Governor Newsom, a vocal advocate for progressive climate policy and a potential 2028 presidential contender, has yet to formally respond to the ruling. However, the decision adds to a string of recent judicial defeats for his administration.

Just one day prior, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued another ruling favorable to Trump, reversing a lower court’s decision and allowing the federal government to maintain command over deployed National Guard units in Los Angeles. The Guard had been dispatched to assist federal law enforcement amid ongoing protests and civil unrest tied to immigration enforcement.

In an earlier ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer argued that Trump exceeded his legal authority by federalizing elements of the California National Guard without the state’s consent, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment. However, the appeals court stayed Breyer’s decision, allowing the deployment to continue.

Reacting to the appellate court’s decision, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “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!!!”

The 9th Circuit’s stay represents a temporary but meaningful win for Trump, who has repeatedly clashed with California leadership over immigration enforcement and federal authority.

Meanwhile, Friday’s Supreme Court decision signals broader implications beyond California, as other states and industries watch closely to see whether legal precedent could limit the autonomy of state governments in setting aggressive environmental regulations that exceed federal standards.

The core of the legal challenge involves California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new emission rules. Under these rules, automakers are required to significantly reduce average greenhouse gas emissions and to manufacture a certain percentage of EVs for sale within the state.

While the Clean Air Act does allow California some flexibility due to its historic air quality issues, the court will now determine whether that flexibility has been exceeded.

As legal proceedings continue, both environmental advocates and industry representatives are preparing for a prolonged and consequential battle—one that could influence national energy policy, environmental law, and the future of state sovereignty in regulatory matters.