Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency

Last updated

Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided June 20, 2025
Full case nameDiamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket no. 24-7
Citations606 U.S. ___ ( more )
Holding
The fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval under the Clean Air Act of California regulations requiring automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh
DissentSotomayor
DissentJackson

Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606 U.S. ___(2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval under the Clean Air Act of California regulations requiring automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles with a goal of decreasing emissions from liquid fuels. The regulations require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles. Several producers of fuels such as gasoline and ethanol sued the EPA in the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the EPA lacked authority to approve the California regulations because they target global climate change rather than local California air quality problems as required by the Clean Air Act. They submitted standing declarations explaining that California’s regulations depress demand for liquid fuel by requiring vehicles that use less or no liquid fuel, causing the fuel producers monetary injury. California’s own estimates indicated the regulations would cause substantial reductions in demand for gasoline exceeding $1 billion beginning in 2020 and increasing to over $10 billion in 2030. [1]

EPA did not challenge the fuel producers’ standing in the D.C. Circuit. California, as well as other States adopting California’s regulations, intervened to defend the EPA's approval. California argued that the fuel producers lacked standing because automobile manufacturers would not change course if EPA’s decision were vacated given the "surging consumer demand" for electric vehicles. The D.C. Circuit held that the fuel producers lacked Article III standing, finding they failed to establish that automakers would likely respond to invalidation of the regulations by producing fewer electric vehicles and more gasoline-powered vehicles. [1]

References

  1. 1 2 3 Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency,No. 24-7 , 606 U.S. ___(2025).
  2. SCOTUSblog (June 20, 2025). "Additional opinions from Friday, June 20". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 5, 2025.

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .