Leaked Memos Reveal Process Behind SCTOUS’ Block of Obama’s Signature Climate Policy
Newly revealed internal documents are shedding light on a pivotal 2016 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States—and raising fresh concerns about both judicial transparency and the growing use of its emergency powers.
According to materials obtained by The New York Times, the Court’s extraordinary move to block former President Barack Obama’s sweeping Clean Power Plan was preceded by sharp internal disagreements among the justices.
At the center of the dispute was Chief Justice John Roberts, who pushed for immediate intervention. The documents show Roberts warning that allowing the regulation to proceed—even temporarily—could fundamentally reshape America’s energy sector before the Court had a chance to fully evaluate its legality.
“Absent a stay, the Clean Power Plan will cause (and is causing) substantial and irreversible reordering of the domestic power sector before this court has an opportunity to review its legality,” Roberts wrote in one memo that was inappropriately leaked.
The Clean Power Plan, crafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, sought to dramatically reduce carbon emissions by imposing strict limits on coal-, oil-, and gas-fired power plants. Critics at the time argued the policy would devastate domestic energy production and drive up costs for American families and businesses.
The case reached the Court through its increasingly scrutinized “shadow docket,” which allows justices to issue emergency rulings before lower courts complete their review. A coalition of Republican-led states and outside groups urged the Court to step in early—an unusual move that sparked resistance from the liberal wing.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about breaking from longstanding judicial norms, writing that “the unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause.”
But conservative justices, including Samuel Alito, sided with Roberts, warning that failure to act could undermine the Court’s role altogether.
“A failure to stay this rule threatens to render our ability to provide meaningful judicial review — and by extension, our institutional legitimacy — a nullity,” Alito wrote.
Within days, the Court issued a 5–4 ruling along ideological lines, temporarily halting the policy—a significant blow to the Obama administration’s climate agenda.
Publicly, the White House downplayed the decision as a temporary setback. Behind the scenes, however, the speed and decisiveness of the Court’s action reportedly caught officials off guard, according to reporting cited by Fox News.
The internal memos, dated from late January through February 9, 2016, provide a rare window into how quickly the justices moved to intervene in a major federal policy—highlighting the growing influence of the Court’s emergency authority.
Legal analyst Jonathan Turley argued that the leak itself raises serious concerns about the Court’s internal integrity. He suggested the disclosure may have been politically motivated and intended to damage certain justices.
“For an institution that prides itself on its confidentiality and insularity, the court is looking increasingly porous and partisan in these leaks,” Turley wrote, noting that this marks the second major breach following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
The revelations also reinforce a broader conservative critique: that aggressive regulatory actions—particularly those affecting critical industries like energy—often push the limits of executive authority and require firm judicial checks.
For many observers, the episode stands as an early and defining example of the Court using its emergency powers to rein in sweeping federal overreach—while the latest leak serves as yet another warning sign that the institution’s long-guarded confidentiality may be under threat.