WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to California's special powers to combat air pollution from the red state.
Due to a dissenting opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas, the court declined Appeal from Ohio and 16 other conservative stateswhich asked the court to rule: “The Golden State is not a golden child.”
Although Monday's brief order closes the door on a constitutional challenge to California's environmental protection standards, the court on Friday cleared the way for another, more focused legal challenge.
The oil and gas industry is suing over the state's “zero emissions” targets for new vehicles, arguing that California's special authority to combat air pollution does not extend to greenhouse gases and global warming.
The D.C. Circuit Court in Washington dismissed that lawsuit in April, saying the oil producers had no standing to sue. They complained that they would sell less fuel in the future.
The judges on Friday agreed to reconsider this decision Early next year. They could clear the way for the lawsuit to continue.
Monday's related order limits the legal grounds the industry can use to challenge California's rule, assuming it ultimately wins.
“The big relief for California right now is that the Supreme Court will not rule on whether California has the authority to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles,” said Ann Carlson, founding director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA.
“Since the 1960s, California has had undeniable authority to regulate conventional vehicle pollutants,” Carlson said. And California air regulators have long maintained that Los Angeles' smog problem is so severe that electric vehicles are needed to meet environmental standards, she said.
When the Supreme Court hears the oil industry's claims early next year, the new Trump administration will likely intervene on the oil industry's side.
The Environmental Protection Agency must grant the state a waiver to go beyond federal standards for vehicles, and Donald Trump's appointees are unlikely to support California's preferred policies.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar had asked the court to reject both appeals. They said California's strict emissions standards are designed to combat smog and other air pollution as well as greenhouse gases.
They argued that Congress had broad powers under the Constitution to make special rules for problems in different states.
They said Congress has approved special tariffs for some states or rules on tribal relations since the beginning of American history.
Ohio Atty. Gen. David Yost pointed to the court's 2013 decision striking down part of the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that it violated the principle of equal state sovereignty.
When Congress passed national air pollution standards in 1967, he said California could go further because it already enforced strict standards to combat the nation's worst smog problem.
Ohio and other red states say this special authority “violates fundamental constitutional principles because no state is more equal than the others.” And Congress does not have the general power to elevate one state over the others… But the Clean Air Act raised Congress placed California above all other states by giving the Golden State alone the power to pass certain environmental laws.”
Without commenting, the justices said they would not hear the constitutional claim.
The Environmental Defense Fund welcomed the court's announcement.
“California’s clean car standards have successfully helped reduce the dangerous soot, smog and climate pollution that endanger everyone, while advancing clean technologies and creating jobs,” said Alice Henderson, senior adviser to the clean air group.
Times staff writer Tony Briscoe contributed to this report.