Supreme Court Deals Crushing Blow To California’s EV Mandate

In a decisive 7–2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court handed California’s climate agenda a significant setback, allowing energy producers to move forward with a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the state’s aggressive electric vehicle mandates.

Notably, even one member of the Court’s liberal wing joined the conservative majority — underscoring the sweeping constitutional and statutory concerns raised by the case.

At issue is California’s requirement that automakers dramatically increase electric vehicle production, part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s broader push to achieve “carbon neutrality” and phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Energy producers argue the mandates are economically destructive and legally flawed.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that regulated industries have the right to challenge burdensome federal approvals in court.

“The government generally 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,” Kavanaugh wrote. “In light of this Court’s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”

Kavanaugh also highlighted inconsistency within the EPA itself.

“EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles,” he noted.

Trump Administration Moves to Roll Back Climate Overreach

The ruling comes shortly after President Donald J. Trump, now serving his second term, signed three resolutions dismantling key elements of California’s green energy mandates. The move dealt a political blow to Gov. Newsom, widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential hopeful and a leading voice of progressive climate activism.

“This case involves California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new California regulations,” Kavanaugh explained. “As relevant here, those regulations generally require automakers (i) to limit average greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold in the State and (ii) to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.”

Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin signaled that even broader reforms are on the horizon, stating that President Trump is preparing what he described as “the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States.”

At the center of that effort is the potential reversal of the EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” which classified greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide as threats to public health. That determination has served as the legal foundation for more than a decade and a half of sweeping federal climate regulations.

The Endangerment Finding paved the way for extensive rulemaking that critics say has imposed enormous costs — estimated in the trillions — on businesses and consumers.

A Law Stretched Beyond Its Original Purpose?

The Clean Air Act, passed decades before climate change became a central political issue, was originally designed to regulate specific pollutants with immediate health impacts, such as factory smoke and vehicle exhaust. Critics argue it was never intended to serve as a broad vehicle for restructuring the American energy and transportation sectors.

Unlike traditional pollutants, greenhouse gases are emitted across virtually every sector of modern life — from industry to agriculture to basic human activity. Opponents of the Endangerment Finding contend that stretching the Clean Air Act to cover such emissions has created legal uncertainty and invited years of litigation.

Under President Joe Biden, the EPA relied heavily on the Endangerment Finding to advance rules aimed at dramatically accelerating electric vehicle adoption — with targets that would have required most new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032.

Supporters claimed the transition would ultimately save consumers money on fuel costs. However, critics argued the upfront price of electric vehicles — often thousands of dollars higher than traditional models — placed undue burdens on working families, small businesses, and truckers who depend on affordable transportation.

The Trump administration now maintains that rescinding the Endangerment Finding could save consumers nearly $2,500 per vehicle while restoring regulatory certainty and respecting congressional authority.

A Turning Point for Federal Climate Authority?

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not immediately invalidate California’s mandates. Instead, it clears the way for a substantive legal challenge to move forward — ensuring that the courts will fully examine whether the EPA overstepped its authority in approving the state’s sweeping requirements.

For constitutional conservatives, the decision represents a critical defense of separation of powers and judicial access — preventing federal agencies from insulating controversial policies from legal scrutiny.

As President Donald J. Trump advances a broad deregulatory agenda in his second term, the clash between federal authority, state activism, and economic freedom appears far from over.

But for now, California’s climate radicals have suffered a significant legal setback — and the fight over who controls America’s energy future is headed back to court.