In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations.
In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations.
She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests."
With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it.
"This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote.
The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added.
The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said.
"Also, 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 added.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits.
Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process.
Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading.
Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others."
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue.
The bottom line, he added, is that the government "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."
The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act.
In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market. The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency. The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping. The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping." The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the Supreme Court at
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court declines to fast-track challenge to Trump tariffs
The US supreme court declined on Friday to speed up its consideration of whether to take up a challenge to Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs even before lower courts have ruled in the dispute. The supreme court denied a request by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, that filed the legal challenge against Trump's tariffs to expedite the review of the dispute by the nation's top judicial body. The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on 29 May that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the supreme court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court rejects toy makers' request to fast track tariff challenge
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs on products from China. The companies on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process,' the companies argued in their request. Trump's tariffs, a key part of his economic agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. A federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments at the end of next month.
