Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
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.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022.
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
