Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority’s ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of California’s vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a “reputational cost” for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek.
She added that the decision gives “fodder” to the perception that “moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”
Why It Matters
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of California’s vehicle emissions regulations.
California’s regulations “require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles,” the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California’s regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target “global climate change rather than local California air quality problems.”
Jackson’s dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably.
What To Know
In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of the California regulations.
In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority’s application of “standing doctrine,” writing that “When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function.”
She argued that “Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making.”
Jackson’s dissent says the court is “setting us down that path.”
“I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,” she said later in the opinion.
Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere “‘appearance’ of favoritism, founded or not,” can undermine public confidence in the highest court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson’s.
What People Are Saying
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: “I don’t think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It’s not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups.”
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: “Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine ‘evenhandedly’…A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion.”
Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: “Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit’s opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court’s opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief.”
Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): “The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental regulation…Today’s SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
The post Justice Jackson Warns of ‘Reputational Cost’ to Supreme Court After Ruling appeared first on Newsweek.
