In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the Supreme Court’s long-term credibility could be at risk following a ruling that favored fuel companies challenging California’s emissions regulations.
The decision, issued Friday in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA, saw the Court’s conservative majority—joined by Justice Elena Kagan—rule 7-2 that fuel companies had the legal standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The case centers on the EPA’s reinstatement of a Clean Air Act waiver allowing California to enforce stricter emissions rules than federal standards—rules that could limit profits from gas-powered vehicle sales.
Related posts
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, argued that it was “evident” the companies had standing because they would lose revenue under California’s stricter regulations. He dismissed the idea that the government could impose “stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation” and then avoid accountability by barring affected industries from challenging the rules in court.
The ruling returns the case to the D.C. Circuit Court to consider the fuel companies’ claims on the merits.
Justice Jackson’s Dissent: A Warning Shot
Justice Jackson, joined in dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, pushed back hard. In a forceful opinion, she said the Court was undermining the very principle of judicial impartiality by relaxing standing rules to favor powerful, well-funded interests—like the fossil fuel industry—while routinely denying access to less influential groups, such as workers, defendants, and death row inmates.
“Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decisionmaking,” Jackson wrote.
She described the case as largely moot and criticized the majority for “reviving a fuel-industry lawsuit” while ignoring its own usual standards for standing. The move, she argued, only fuels perceptions that corporate interests enjoy special treatment.
“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,” Jackson added.
Impact and Broader Implications
The dissent warned that the decision could pave the way for further legal attacks on the Clean Air Act, weakening a critical tool in the fight against climate change. Jackson also raised concern about what the public sees as the Court’s growing bias toward corporations—a perception she said could damage the judiciary’s legitimacy and long-term reputation.
“Americans’ faith in an impartial Judiciary is the lifeblood of our democracy,” she concluded. “And today’s ruling threatens to drain it.”
While the fuel companies’ legal challenge proceeds in the lower courts, the Supreme Court’s credibility debate is clearly heating up—and Justice Jackson’s dissent signals that the stakes go far beyond this single case.
