Supreme Court Deals Crushing Blow To California’s EV Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to California’s climate activists, with even one liberal justice aligning with the conservative faction to facilitate this outcome.

In a 7-2 decision, the court has allowed the state’s energy producers to proceed with their lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging California’s stringent green energy mandates. Central to this case is the state’s stipulation that electric vehicles must dominate the market by 2035, which is part of Governor Gavin Newsom’s initiative to achieve “carbon neutrality” for California.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, emphasized that these mandates are not only excessively forceful but may also be unlawful.

“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 stated. “In light of this Court’s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”

Kavanaugh further noted that the EPA has changed its legal arguments over time, a development that did not bolster their case.

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

This ruling follows President Donald Trump’s decisive actions earlier this month, during which he signed three resolutions that dismantled significant components of California’s ambitious green agenda. The Trump administration’s actions represent a substantial setback for Newsom, who is a potential contender for the 2028 presidential election, and his efforts to position California as the most “progressive” climate state in the nation.

“This case pertains to California’s 2012 request for the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of new regulations,” Kavanaugh clarified. “Specifically, these regulations generally mandate that automakers (i) limit the average greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold within the State and (ii) produce a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.”

Chet Thompson, the president and CEO of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the organization behind the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling as a significant triumph.

“The Supreme Court has resolved any uncertainty regarding the right of fuel manufacturers to contest unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” Thompson stated to the Daily Caller. “California’s electric vehicle mandates are illegal and detrimental to our nation. Congress did not grant California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, impose electric vehicle mandates, or prohibit new gasoline car sales, all of which the state has sought to accomplish through its deliberate misinterpretation of the statute.”

The California governor has faced a challenging few days, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also overturned a lower court’s decision, allowing President Donald Trump to retain control of the California National Guard.

Trump expressed his appreciation to the appeals court for its ruling that permits him to maintain the deployment of the Guard in Los Angeles.

“The Appeals Court decided last night that I can utilize the National Guard to ensure the safety of our cities, specifically Los Angeles,” Trump shared on his Truth Social page. “If I had not deployed the Military to Los Angeles, that city would be in flames right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

According to The Washington Post, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a ruling made by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer.

On Thursday morning, Breyer asserted that Trump had acted unconstitutionally by federalizing portions of the California National Guard to assist in safeguarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and federal property, referencing the 10th Amendment.

Breyer determined that by deploying the Guard, Trump had acted inappropriately, “both surpassing the limits of his statutory authority and breaching the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”