Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Oral Argument: Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No. 24-7 | Date Argued: 04/23/25

1:04:53
 
Share
 

Manage episode 478669038 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. Whether EPA's preemption waiver for California's greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission- vehicle mandate is unlawful.

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.

  continue reading

104 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 478669038 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. Whether EPA's preemption waiver for California's greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission- vehicle mandate is unlawful.

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.

  continue reading

104 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Listen to this show while you explore
Play