In a strongly worded dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced serious concerns about the direction of the court in a ruling concerning vehicle emissions regulations. Her criticism came after the court delivered a 7-2 decision supporting fuel producers in their challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of California’s clean vehicle emissions standards. Jackson’s dissent suggested the decision bolsters the perception that the court caters to wealthy interests, undermining its credibility with the public.
Justice Jackson contended that the ruling implies the court shows favoritism in choosing which cases to consider and how it resolves them, often leaning toward those with deep pockets. “This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens,” she wrote. According to her, the legal standing granted to the producers in this case was based on a rationale “that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs.”
Although the practical consequences of the decision may be limited for now, Jackson warned of broader implications. She pointed out that the ruling could support future challenges by the fuel industry aimed at weakening the Clean Air Act. “The decision has little practical importance now, but in the future, it will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,” she noted. Furthermore, she emphasized that the court’s decision might come with a long-term cost to its integrity. “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,” Jackson added.
Her concerns were heightened by the current political context, particularly the Trump administration’s actions to dismantle environmental protections championed by former President Joe Biden, including California’s electric vehicle mandates. Given this backdrop, Jackson argued the case was either moot or soon would be, raising questions about why the court took it up in the first place. “With the Trump administration reversing course on many of former President Joe Biden’s environmental policies… the case is most likely moot or soon will be,” she wrote, expressing confusion over the court’s decision to proceed.
The ruling highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the court’s ideological leanings. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the court has frequently been criticized for appearing overly receptive to the interests of large corporations. This decision adds to a pattern in which the court has shown skepticism toward broad governmental regulations and made it more difficult for consumers and employees to pursue class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a longstanding precedent dating back four decades that had given federal agencies considerable authority in shaping regulations — a move cheered by business groups but criticized by advocates of government oversight.
Jackson didn’t mince words in her closing remarks, pointing to what she sees as the court’s reluctance to hear cases involving individuals who lack institutional power. “Simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others,” she said, highlighting a disparity in access to judicial relief.
In response to Jackson’s dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, defended the court’s approach to determining legal standing. He rejected the suggestion that the court favors corporate interests. “A review of standing cases disproves that suggestion,” he wrote, noting that liberal justices have sometimes sided with the majority in standing disputes. Kavanaugh cited a ruling from the previous year where the court concluded that anti-abortion doctors lacked standing to sue over the abortion pill mifepristone, with liberal justices part of the majority in that decision.
Kavanaugh emphasized that entities targeted by regulatory actions should have the right to challenge those regulations. “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,” he stated.
Legal scholars have weighed in, including Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Adler, whom Justice Jackson referenced in her opinion, argued that her conclusions about the court’s biases are misplaced. He pointed out that no other justices, not even the two other liberals on the bench, joined 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,” Adler said in an interview. He added, “It’s not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups.”
Adler cautioned against reducing complex legal disputes to simple narratives of business versus public interest. “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,” he said, pushing back against the notion that this ruling indicates systematic favoritism.
The roots of the dispute lie in the EPA’s authority under the federal Clean Air Act to issue nationwide vehicle emissions standards. Due to California’s longstanding leadership in environmental regulation, the Act allows the state to receive special waivers permitting it to implement its own, often stricter, emissions rules. This particular case revolved around a 2012 request from California for EPA approval of new regulations, not its more recent and controversial 2024 plan to phase out gasoline-powered cars by 2035, for which the state also sought a waiver.
In a parallel political development, the Republican-led Congress recently voted to overturn California’s waiver, underscoring the contentious nature of emissions policy and state-federal dynamics. While this legislative move might further limit the impact of the court’s decision, the symbolic significance of the ruling remains potent.
Justice Jackson’s dissent calls attention to broader concerns about perceived bias in the highest court and its willingness to take up cases involving powerful economic actors. While her critique stands alone, without support from other liberal justices, it amplifies ongoing public debate over the court’s impartiality and role in shaping regulatory policy. Her closing comments encapsulate a growing sentiment among court observers who worry that the balance of justice may be tipping in favor of those with financial influence: “This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.”
Her dissent, though solitary, serves as a pointed reminder of the stakes involved when the judiciary wades into politically and economically charged territory — and the lasting impression such decisions can leave on public trust in the institution.