US EditionJustice Jackson Warns of "Reputational Cost" to Supreme Court After Ruling
- On June 20, the Supreme Court decided by a 7-2 vote that companies producing fuel have the legal right to sue over the EPA’s authorization of California’s rules governing emissions from vehicles.
- The case arose from fossil fuel companies suing the EPA over its 2012 waiver allowing California to set stricter vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the majority for applying standing rules leniently to fuel producers while denying similar rights to less powerful litigants.
- Jackson cautioned that this ruling is likely to encourage the fuel industry to continue challenging the Clean Air Act and warned it could damage the Court’s reputation.
- Her dissent implies that the Court's pattern of favoring corporate interests risks eroding public trust and hardening perceptions of bias towards powerful parties.
13 Articles
13 Articles
Supreme Court justice suggests her colleagues have been taken in by 'moneyed interests'
After the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 majority decision siding with the fossil fuel industry over environmental regulators, one of the dissenters lamented not just the decision itself, but the propensity of the nation's highest court to side with the rich and powerful.Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote Friday that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – who was appointed by former President Joe Biden — used her dissent in the Diamond Alternative Energy v. E…
Supreme Court liberal delivers blistering dissent after hit to its 'reputation'
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson berated her colleagues Friday for a ruling she claimed gave the impression that the Court was "overly sympathetic to corporate interests," The Daily Beast reported.Jackson's takedown came after the conservative court voted 7-2 in favor of "allowing fuel pr...
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 80% of the sources lean Left
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
