Washington – The Supreme Court joined President Trump on Friday and the Republicans of Congress in the oil and gas post in his challenge to California impulse for electric vehicles.
In a 7-2 decision, the judges relived the demand for the industry and ruled that fuel manufacturers had a position to sue for the strict standards of California emissions.
The lawsuit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the era of the seventies to combat Smog as a means to combat climate change in the 21st century.
The new California emission standards “did not address a local California's air quality problem, as they say, the law of clean air, but was designed to address global Climate change, ”Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to describe the position of the industry.
The court did not rule on the claim itself, but said that fuel manufacturers had a position to sue because they would be injured by the state rule.
“Fuel producers earn money selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in gasoline purchases and other liquid fuels resulting from California regulations harms their results,” Kavanaugh said.
Only Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not agree.
Jackson questioned why the court “would relive a claim from the fuel industry that all remember that it will soon be debatable (and it is already a large extent) … This case forages the unfortunate perception that monetary interests will enjoy an easier path towards relief in this court than common citizens.”
But the result was eclipsed by the recent actions of Trump and the Republicans of the Congress.
With the support of Trump, the Chamber and the Senate adopted measures to disapprove of regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce new broad regulations to require cars and trucks of “zero emissions”.
Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as leader of the Nation in the fight against air pollution and greenhouse gases.
In a ceremony for the signing of invoices in the White House, he said that disapproval measures “will avoid the attempt of California to impose a mandate of electric vehicles nationwide and regulate the national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”
“Our Constitution does not allow a special state of state to believe standards that limit the choice of consumer and impose a mandate of electric vehicles to the entire nation,” he said.
In response to Friday's decision, California Atty. General Rob Bonta said: “The struggle for the fight for clean air is far from finishing. Although we are disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to allow this case to advance in the lower court, we will continue to defend the California authority vigorously under the Clean Air Law.”
Some environmentalists said that the decision of Greenlights future demands of the industry and the pollutants.
“This is a dangerous precedent of an infernal court to protect corporate interests,” said David Pettit, a lawyer for the Climate Law Institute of the Center for Biological Diversity. “This decision opens the door to the most demands of the oil industry that attack the capacity of states to protect their residents and wild life from climate change.”
The writer of Times, Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.
