California AG Bonta Prepares Supreme Court Battle to Defend Climate Regulations
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is preparing a major legal confrontation with the Trump administration over the revocation of the EPA’s endangerment finding, which underpins federal climate rules. Bonta argues that the current Supreme Court composition, now dominated by justices who previously dissented against climate regulations, poses a significant risk, but he remains confident in the legal merits of his case. The dispute centers on the administration’s efforts to dismantle greenhouse gas regulations and undermine California’s authority to set stricter vehicle emission standards. While Bonta asserts that climate policies are essential for long-term economic stability, public opinion remains divided, with a majority of likely voters opposing California’s 2035 ban on new gas-powered car sales.
Key points
- Bonta is leading a multistate lawsuit against the EPA’s move to revoke the endangerment finding, a legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases established nearly 20 years ago.
- The Trump administration has recently axed the EPA rule limiting carbon dioxide from power plants and is attempting to nullify California’s Clean Air Act waivers via the Congressional Review Act.
- Bonta notes that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas, previously dissented in the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA case, raising concerns about the outcome of the current appeal.
- Despite legal challenges, Bonta maintains that California’s climate policies are not out of touch with voters, arguing that ignoring climate change leads to higher costs from wildfires and floods.
- A recent POLITICO poll indicates that 54% of likely voters oppose California’s 2035 ban on new internal combustion engine vehicle sales, a stance shared by gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, though he believes the goal is still achievable.
Background
This legal battle follows a series of aggressive moves by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations, including the cancellation of offshore wind projects and the withholding of clean energy funding. These actions align with broader efforts to expand fossil fuel development, such as the administration’s controversial deal to gain majority control of Venezuela’s oil reserves, which aims to boost domestic energy supplies and lower gas prices. The current dispute represents the most significant test of the administration’s climate agenda, as it seeks to dismantle the foundational legal framework for federal environmental protection.
Why it matters
The outcome of this legal fight could determine the future of federal climate regulations and the extent to which states like California can enforce stricter environmental standards. If the Supreme Court rules against the endangerment finding, it could unravel decades of climate policy and set a precedent that limits the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Additionally, the case highlights the growing tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-level initiatives to address climate change, potentially reshaping the balance of power in environmental governance.
What to watch
Bonta’s office has filed a lawsuit regarding the administration’s handling of offshore wind leases and is preparing to appeal the EPA’s reclassification of California’s vehicle emission waivers. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, where the outcome will hinge on the interpretation of the Clean Air Act and the legal status of the endangerment finding. Meanwhile, the administration continues to push for the nullification of California’s waivers through the Congressional Review Act, despite a federal court ruling that the move is illegal.
Want the full story? Read the original reporting
Read on Politico