The question
Whether fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of California regulations requiring automakers to build more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles.
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA
What the Court decided
Reversed. The Court held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California vehicle regulations. The producers make money selling gasoline and other liquid fuels, and regulations designed to reduce liquid-fuel consumption cause them monetary injury that invalidating the regulations would likely redress. Injury and causation were undisputed, and record evidence and commonsense economic principles showed that even minimal added revenue satisfies redressability.
How the justices split
7-2The Court's opinion
Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett
Article III standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The fuel producers' monetary injury and its causation were undisputed, since decreased liquid-fuel purchases resulting from regulations that require lower emissions and vehicle electrification directly reduce the producers' sales. Redressability was satisfied because even minimal additional revenue suffices, and invalidating the regulations would likely produce more fuel sales based on record evidence and commonsense economic principles.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, writing alone
Filed a dissenting opinion disagreeing with the Court's conclusion that the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.
Dissenting
Jackson, writing alone
Filed a dissenting opinion disagreeing with the Court's conclusion that the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.
Source: syllabus, Held
Article III standing requires three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
Source: syllabus, Held
The fuel producers' injury in fact and causation were straightforward and undisputed, because decreased liquid-fuel purchases resulting from the California regulations constitute monetary injury.
Source: syllabus, Held
Redressability was satisfied because even minimal additional revenue suffices and invalidating the regulations would likely result in more fuel sales.
Source: syllabus, Held
Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett, while Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissenting opinions.
Source: syllabus, lineup