Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticizes the Court's decision in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v EPA*, arguing its acceptance of the case favors wealthy interests. Jackson's dissent highlights the Court's apparent bias towards "moneyed interests," accepting a case seemingly moot due to the Trump administration's planned reversal of the EPA rule. She expresses concern that this prioritization of wealthy litigants, coupled with a reluctance to hear cases involving less powerful litigants, damages the Court's reputation and undermines public trust in its impartiality. This decision, she warns, may embolden future attacks on environmental regulations like the Clean Air Act
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticizes the Court's decision in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA*, a case challenging a 2022 EPA rule allowing California's stricter vehicle emission standards. The case, brought by fuel industry groups after a lower court dismissed their challenge for lack of standing, highlights concerns about the Court's prioritization of "moneyed interests." Jackson argues the case is moot due to a pending Trump administration reversal, questioning the Court's decision to hear it and suggesting potential bias towards wealthy litigants. This 7-2 ruling favoring the fuel industry raises concerns about the Court's influence on the Clean Air Act and its impact on environmental regulations
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing dissent, criticizing the Court's decision in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA*. Jackson argues the case, challenging a 2022 EPA rule on California emissions standards, is now moot due to the impending Trump administration reversal. This renders the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in favor of the fuel industry inexplicable and raises concerns about the Court prioritizing "moneyed interests" over cases involving less powerful litigants. The decision, she warns, may further fuel perceptions of bias towards corporate interests and weaken the Clean Air Act
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent highlights the Court's decision to hear Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v EPA, a case she argues should have been dismissed or remanded to a lower court due to mootness. This ruling, she contends, favors "moneyed interests" and raises concerns about the Court's certiorari standards and potential bias against less powerful litigants. Jackson criticizes the lack of explanation for hearing a case impacting the Clean Air Act, potentially setting a precedent for future industry challenges. Her dissent underscores worries about the Court's reputation and its perceived favoritism towards corporate interests
Supreme Court Sides With Fuel Industry in 7-2 Ruling, Sparking Dissents. Justice Jackson's scathing dissent accuses the court of prioritizing "moneyed interests," highlighting a 7-2 decision in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v EPA* that perplexed even fellow dissenting Justice Sotomayor. The ruling, deemed moot by Jackson due to a pending Trump administration reversal, raises concerns about the Court's case selection process and potential bias towards wealthy litigants
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing dissent, criticizing the Court's decision in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA*. Jackson argues the Court's acceptance of this fuel industry case, which challenges the Clean Air Act, demonstrates a troubling bias towards "moneyed interests." She highlights the case's mootness and lack of justification for Supreme Court review, warning that the ruling will embolden future attacks on environmental regulations. This decision, she contends, further damages the Court's reputation and perception of impartiality
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent highlights concerns that the Court's certiorari process favors wealthy litigants. She argues the Court overlooks jurisdictional defects in cases brought by "moneyed interests," while dismissing petitions from less powerful parties. This perceived bias, she warns, further fuels the perception of the Court's favoritism towards corporate interests and undermines its legitimacy. The Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v EPA case exemplifies this concern, showcasing a decision that seemingly prioritizes industry interests over procedural fairness and potentially harms the Clean Air Act
Justice Jackson's dissent criticizes the Supreme Court's apparent bias towards wealthy litigants, highlighting a concerning trend of prioritizing cases benefiting "moneyed interests" while neglecting those involving the rights of workers, criminal defendants, and other less powerful groups. This perceived favoritism, exemplified by the Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v EPA case, raises serious questions about the Court's impartiality and its commitment to upholding the rights of all citizens. The decision to hear this case, now arguably moot, fuels concerns that the Court's certiorari standards are inconsistently applied, potentially undermining public trust
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent criticizes the Court's decision in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v EPA*, arguing that the ruling favors the fuel industry and reinforces perceptions of bias towards corporate interests. Jackson expresses concern that the Court's acceptance of this case, which she deems moot and unnecessary, damages its reputation by appearing overly sympathetic to wealthy litigants while neglecting cases involving less powerful parties. This decision, she warns, could further solidify the belief that the Court's certiorari standards are influenced by financial interests
Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion in *Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA* preemptively addressed Justice Jackson's dissent, citing recent precedent to refute her claim that the Supreme Court favors wealthy litigants. The case, challenging EPA emissions standards, highlights concerns about the Court's certiorari standards and potential bias towards moneyed interests
HuffPost: 20 Years of Unwavering Truth. Support independent journalism. We need your help to continue fighting for truth and transparency for the next 20 years
Unwavering commitment to factual reporting: delivering the truth everyone deserves
Your continued support fuels our vital investigative journalism. We're deeply grateful for your past contributions, which strengthened our newsroom during challenging times. Now, more than ever, we need your help to continue delivering critical reporting on important issues like the Supreme Court's decisions impacting environmental regulations and the voices of the less powerful. Please join us again
Unwavering commitment to factual reporting: delivering the truth everyone deserves
Your support fuels our vital investigative journalism. We're deeply grateful for your past contributions, which helped sustain our newsroom during challenging times. Now, as we continue to report on critical issues like the Supreme Court's handling of corporate influence, your support is more crucial than ever. Join us again to ensure independent journalism thrives
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
For two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can’t do this without you.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
Among them was last year’s ruling in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which found Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine didn’t have standing to bring the case, which would have restricted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortion.
Source: Original Article