Oral Argument: Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No. 24-7 | Date Argued: 04/23/25
Get every episode summarized
Each time The High Court Report publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
About this episode
Case Info: Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No. 24-7 | Date Argued: 04/23/25
Link to Docket: Here.
Background:
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act generally preempts States from adopting emission standards for new motor vehicles. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a). But under Section 209(b) of that Act, EPA may grant California and only California-a waiver from federal preemption to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Before granting a preemption waiver, EPA must find that California "need[s]" its own emission standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." Id. § 7543(b)(1)(B).
In 2022, EPA granted California a waiver to set its own standards for greenhouse-gas emissions and to adopt a zero-emission-vehicle mandate, both expressly intended to address global climate change by reducing California vehicles' consumption of liquid fuel. Fuel producers challenged EPA's waiver as contrary to the text of Section 209(b). The D.C. Circuit rejected the challenge without reaching the merits, concluding that fuel producers' injuries were not redressable because they had not established that vacating EPA's waiver would have any effect on automakers.
Questions Presented:
- Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
- Whether EPA's preemption waiver for California's greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission- vehicle mandate is unlawful.
Holding: The fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.
Result: Reversed and remanded.
Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson filed dissenting opinions.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For Petitioners: Jeffrey B. Wall
- For Federal Respondents: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General
- For State Respondents: Joshua A. Klein, Deputy Solicitor General, Oakland, Cal.
Get every episode summarized
Each time The High Court Report publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Know when Jane Smith turns up
Follow Jane Smith and once a week we email you every new episode they appeared on — including guest spots the show notes never mention, because we read the transcript.
Follow Jane SmithFree. Pick your own day and time.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.
The High Court Report
New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law
The High Court Report