Latest news with #EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Business
- Newsweek
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 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.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Automotive
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court joins Trump and GOP in targeting California's emission standards
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California's drive for electric vehicles. In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry's lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California's strict emissions standards. The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st Century. California's new emissions standard 'did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote using italics to described the industry's position. The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state's rule. 'The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,' Kavanaugh said. Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed. Jackson questioned why the court would 'revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). ...This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.' But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of President Trump and congressional Republicans. With Trump's backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require 'zero emissions' cars and trucks. Trump said the new rules were designed to displace California as the nation's leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases. In a bill signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures 'will prevent California's attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.' 'Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,' he said. In response, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said 'the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California's authority under the Clean Air Act.' Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters. 'This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,' said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. 'This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states' ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.' Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
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." Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law whose scholarship pushes back on Jackson's theory, said it was notable that no other justices, including her two fellow liberals, signed on to her dissent. "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," he said in an interview with NBC News. "It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Adler, who Jackson cited in her dissent, said it can be "very simplistic" to classify cases as pro-business or anti-business simply because there can often be wealthy interests on both sides. 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. The Republican-controlled Congress voted earlier this month to revoke that waiver. This article was originally published on
USA Today
8 hours ago
- Climate
- USA Today
Battling summer heat wave? Tips to manage those AC costs
AC units can be lifesaving, but there are other tips to keep homes cool. Millions of Americans are facing hot, humid temperatures at the start of summer. Across the Midwest and Northeast, over 40 million Americans are under extreme heat watches on June 20. Some states could reach into the 100s with high humidity. New York and Washington, D.C., could see temperatures surpass 90 degrees for up to a week. For people with air-conditioning, window units and central air will be humming for days on end. While staying safe and staying cool is paramount, people must also balance their bills. Here are tips to efficiently cool homes at the start of a scorching summer. Hot and humid: Heat advisory for millions as 'dangerous' temperatures kick off summer What's the best temperature to set AC? The U.S. Department of Energy recommends keeping temperatures inside comfortable and at a level that controls for humidity. People should also try to lower the difference between indoor and outdoor temperatures to help save money. Energy Star, an Environmental Protection Agency program promoting energy efficiency, recommends setting ACs to 78 degrees for comfort and efficiency when you wake up. Energy companies, including in Missouri, Maryland and Florida, recommend thermostats at 78 degrees during summer months. Few Americans follow this recommendation, though. A Consumer Reports survey in 2021 said people with central air set their median temperatures to 72 degrees. No respondents selected temperatures warmer than 76 degrees. When sleeping, ideally when outdoor temperatures drop, people can set temperatures 4 degrees warmer. Thermostats that are programmable can regulate these temperatures, according to Energy Star. Meanwhile, installing thermostats further from areas that receive cool or heat, like a window with an AC unit that takes in sunlight, can help regulate temperatures. What about when I'm away? The energy department says keeping a house warmer when you're away can avert unnecessary energy use. Energy Star recommends setting temperatures 7 degrees warmer when you're away from home. Just a 7- to 10-degree difference, for about eight hours each day, can save as much as 10% a year on cooling and heating costs, the energy department said. Other ways to stay cool Climate and AC More people are using air conditioning in the country, EPA data suggests. That's in part because we experience more hot days due to a warming climate. Contributing: Jeanine Santucci and Greta Cross, USA TODAY; Steven Howe, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle; Jordan Green, Memphis Commercial Appeal; Greg Giesen, Delaware News Journal; and Manahil Ahmad, The Bergen Record.
Miami Herald
8 hours ago
- Climate
- Miami Herald
Tens of Thousands In California Told To Stay Indoors
Tens of thousands of people in southern California have been advised to remain indoors as "emergency" air quality conditions impact parts of the Coachella Valley on Friday. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) AirNow map, which provides a real-time snapshot of air quality, shows that air pollution levels around Cathedral City and Thousands Palms are "very unhealthy" to "hazardous" on Friday morning. The warnings mean that the risk of negative health effects from air pollution is increased for everyone, not just vulnerable populations. Air pollution and extreme heat pose significant health risks to the general public, in particular for the young, seniors and vulnerable populations such as those with underlying respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. The EPA warns that the current air pollution levels can lead to serious health issues, including reduced lung function, severe respiratory symptoms including chest pain and aggravated coughs, and increased hospital admissions. The AirNow Map shows that a maroon warning - the highest category - is in force for Cathedral city, which has a population of more than 50,000 people. A "hazardous" maroon warning means that pollution levels are of "emergency conditions," and that "everyone is more likely to be affected," the AirNow website says. A "very unhealthy" purple warning - the second highest category - covers Desert Edge, Sky Valley, Thousand Palms and Sunair. AirNow says that the risk of health effects are "increased for everyone" in these areas. Meanwhile, red warnings are also in force in the Coachella Valley in Rancho Mirage and parts of Palm Desert, along with a large area along the California-Arizona border including Yuma. Red warnings mean that "some members of the general public may experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects." The EPA said that residents should stay inside wherever possible while the air quality is so poor. "Everyone: Avoid all physical activity outdoors. Sensitive groups: remain indoors and keep activity levels low. Follow tips for keep particle levels low indoors." It added: "The biggest health threat from smoke is from fine particles... [which] aggravate chronic heart and lung diseases - and even are linked to premature deaths in people with these conditions." Jonathan Grigg, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, told Newsweek previously: "There are very clear links between inhaling particles and earlier death from both respiratory and cardiovascular diseases." Air quality warnings are updated regularly by the EPA and National Weather Service. Residents in affected areas can access daily forecasts and health guidance via and local agencies, with officials providing current information as environmental conditions develop. Related Articles What Is A Heat Dome? Millions To Face Scorching Temperatures This WeekendRare Summer 'Winter' Storm To Strike With Two Feet of SnowUS Heat Wave Warnings: Live Tracker Maps 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
