Supreme Court Delivers Setback to California’s Climate Mandates in Key Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major decision that opens the door for energy producers to challenge California’s ambitious green energy regulations, marking a significant blow to the state’s climate agenda. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court allowed a lawsuit by fuel manufacturers to proceed against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had previously approved California’s vehicle emissions standards.

The case centers around California’s push to require a dramatic shift toward electric vehicles by 2035 — a cornerstone of Governor Gavin Newsom’s broader plan to achieve statewide “carbon neutrality.” Fuel producers argued that the EPA’s approval of these regulations imposed unlawful burdens on their industry.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that industries impacted by such sweeping environmental mandates have a legal right to challenge them in court. He rejected the notion that the fuel industry lacked standing, calling that argument inconsistent with both precedent and basic principles of fairness.

“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. “The fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”

He also criticized the EPA for frequently changing its legal arguments concerning the Clean Air Act and its application to state-level greenhouse gas regulations. According to the Court’s majority, these shifts further undermined the agency’s credibility and invited judicial scrutiny.

Backdrop of the Legal Challenge

The lawsuit stems from California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of updated vehicle emissions standards. The rules would require automakers to reduce average greenhouse gas emissions across fleets sold in the state and ensure that a certain percentage of vehicles sold are electric.

Opponents argue that these mandates effectively give California regulatory power far beyond what federal law allows. Chet Thompson, president and CEO of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers — the organization behind the suit — hailed the Court’s decision as a significant victory.

“California’s EV mandates are unlawful and bad for our country,” Thompson said in a statement. “Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles, or ban new gas-powered car sales. This ruling confirms that we have the right to challenge that overreach.”

Notably, one liberal justice joined the Court’s conservative bloc in the decision, underscoring the broader legal concerns surrounding state-led climate initiatives that could influence national policy.

A Broader Legal and Political Landscape

The decision comes shortly after a series of aggressive moves by the Trump administration aimed at reversing California’s environmental policies. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed multiple resolutions rolling back several green energy initiatives previously championed by Governor Newsom.

Newsom, widely considered a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, has sought to position California as a leader in environmental innovation. The Court’s ruling, however, signals judicial resistance to state-level efforts that could conflict with federal regulatory frameworks or impose burdens on other states or industries.

This is not the first legal setback for the Newsom administration in recent months. In a separate immigration case, the Supreme Court sided with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), permitting broader enforcement methods in Southern California.

In that ruling, the justices voted 6–3 to put on hold a lower court’s restrictions on ICE activities in the Los Angeles area. Those restrictions had limited agents from conducting immigration enforcement based on general characteristics such as speaking Spanish or being seen in areas where day laborers congregate.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh again wrote separately, defending the right of immigration authorities to conduct brief interviews with individuals meeting what he termed “common sense” criteria, such as working in construction or not speaking English fluently.

However, the Court’s liberal justices strongly dissented. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the government should not be allowed to target individuals based on appearance, language, or type of work.

“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 dissent read. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

Looking Ahead

Both rulings reflect a broader shift by the Court to reassert limits on regulatory authority and expand the ability of industries — and immigration enforcement — to challenge or bypass legal restrictions. As the legal battles continue, the Supreme Court’s approach to environmental and immigration policy will remain central to debates over states’ rights, federal authority, and constitutional protections.

With future cases already in the pipeline, California’s efforts to lead on climate and immigration policy may face further judicial resistance in the years ahead.