The American Supreme Court has been on something of a run of polarizing precedents of late, hasn’t it? First, it tossed aside some 50 years of perfectly sensible fertility rights barely a day after it had ruled, almost as egregiously, that Americans can carry a concealed weapon without a license. By the staid standards of jurisprudence, it was a blockbuster week.

Not surprisingly, lost in all these headline-generating decisions was another that passed largely unnoticed. So, while the rescinding of Roe v. Wade continues to resonate just as loudly more than two months later, none but the most diehard of environmentalists even took notice of something called West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.

That’s because West Virginia v. EPA deals with arcane laws that regulate the noxious fumes coal-fired electricity plants spew — laws that may soon become largely irrelevant anyway. Renewables are quickly pricing coal out of business so, even though this recent relaxation of emissions standards leaves coal a little less regulated, as an important energy source, it will be gone soon enough. In other words, as bad as coal-plant emissions might be, this particular Supreme Court decision probably doesn’t matter all that much.

But the reason behind the justices’ decision, well, that, my friends, might matter a whole heck of a lot, especially if you believe that the climate-changing greenhouse gases automobiles emit need regulating. That’s because West Virginia v. EPA posits that the Environmental Protection Agency has, over the years, taken upon itself to assert greater authority over its charges. In the case of these coal-fired electricity plants, it tried to enact industry-changing emissions regulations — in this case, the coal community said the EPA was trying to put them out of business — without direct congressional approval.

Un-uh, said the highest court in the land, you can’t do that. In a new twist on an old legal theory — and one finding traction among the ultra-conservative — SCOTUS said that all such industry-changing decisions must wait on specific direction from Congress, only elected representatives having the power to impart protocols that might affect businesses’ livelihoods. No matter how sensible the solution, “agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion. “It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.” Simply put, the EPA’s aggressive cuts to coal plant emissions was beyond its authority. This theory that governmental agencies can only act at the behest of Congress even has a name — the major questions doctrine. I’d ask that you remember it and its meaning. I promise it will become very important in just a couple more paragraphs.

That’s because of another Supreme Court ruling, this one an older case called Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. Unlike West Virginia, it’s a doozy, essentially the ruling that mandated that the EPA had to regulate automotive CO2 emissions.

motor mouth: the supreme court v. the epa

In this October 13, 2015, file photo, a Volkswagen Touareg diesel is tested in the Environmental Protection Agency’s cold temperature test facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan Getty

Yes, “had to.” Like many, even those of us in the biz, I had thought that the EPA had to fight for the right to regulate greenhouse gasses. In fact, it’s the opposite: Clean-air activists had to sue the EPA to force them to put a cap on tailpipe CO2 emissions.

More important, at least for today’s discussion, is how Massachusetts v. EPA creates that mandate. According to, the EPA’s right to regulate tailpipe emissions stems from the Clean Air Act, which gives it the right to limit the “pollutants” that internal-combustion engines create. So, rather than create a new statute that specified the agency must regulate carbon dioxide, Massachusetts v. EPA took the more expedient route of simply defining CO2 as a pollutant, something that, by’s reckoning, “Congress had never foreseen when it passed the statute in 1970.” As author Sam Evans-Brown virtually foretold in a 2000 article, a rulings reversal by some future Supreme Court could make including CO2 on the list of pollutants the EPA should regulate a “workaround” at best.

There are those that think that workaround will hold. David Bookbinder, who worked on the original Massachusetts brief and now is chief counsel at the Niskanen Center, told E&E News that Massachusetts v. EPA is “slowly becoming insulated as precedent.” Nonetheless, that broadening of the definition of “pollutant” is open to attack. Some 0.03 per cent of our atmosphere has always been comprised of CO2, its natural sources, such as outgassing from the ocean, decomposing vegetation, venting volcanoes, naturally occurring wildfires, and even belches from ruminant animals, long predating mankind.

It is only, in fact, in the last hundred years or so that, as its presence in our air increased past 300 parts per million — it now sits at 414.72 ppm, says — that it’s become actually harmful. In other words, while an excess of carbon dioxide may well very be deemed pollution, it may not be, in and of itself, a pollutant. If you’re following along, that means that, like the recently repealed right to abortion — you do know the original Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed abortion was pretty flakey right from the get-go, right? — the EPA’s right to regulate greenhouse gasses might not be based on the firmest of legal logic.

motor mouth: the supreme court v. the epa

Smoke from a coal power plant’s chimneys Photo by Getty

And that’s not the worst of it. Remember when I asked you to keep the doctrine of major questions — again, the concept that governmental regulatory agencies must wait on the will of Congress before rendering industry-altering regulations — fresh in your synapses? Well, the reason I made the request is that, back when Massachusetts v. EPA was being adjudicated, the EPA’s reasoning for not wanting to regulate CO2 was simple: When that Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, Congress focused all its concern on smog-inducing pollutants such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Greenhouse gasses and their potential effect on climate change were not, in fact, ever mentioned in the statute. As a result, the EPA took the position that, because Congress had not specifically intended the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 when it was originally passed, the agency could not, in and of itself, make the decision to regulate greenhouse gases without new direction from Congress.

Yes, you’re reading that right: the very reason the EPA has had to regulate CO2 since 2007 can be chalked up to the behaviour the current Supreme Court is trying to eradicate from all governmental agencies. More ominously, according to, Justice Antonin Scalia’s minority dissent way back in 2007 focused specifically on the major decisions doctrine that troubles today’s Supreme Court so much, stating quite clearly “that the Clean Air Act was intended to combat conventional lower-atmosphere pollutants and not global climate change.” Kinda makes you wanna read the fine print, right?

But what to make of all this legal jargon?

Like the recently repealed right to abortion, the EPA’s right to regulate greenhouse gasses might not be based on the firmest of legal logic

Well, the first thing I learned is that legalese really is barely more decipherable than Russian Cyrillic is to an English speaker. Nonetheless, assuming I do have some grasp of the jurisprudence, there are three key takeaways from all this lawyerly hocus-pocus. The first is that, as much it might be fashionable to lay this all at the feet of the Supremes, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Voters, politicians, and both political parties have all had eons — for abortion rights, almost 50 years; in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, 15 — to codify them into unimpeachable law. Blame Trump’s three appointees all you like, but, to paraphrase the most famous three words in the American constitution, we the people are to blame.

The second is a question, that of whether the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act — a climate-change bill, by the way, even if it is labelled as “inflation-fighting” to shore up public support — will be effective in stopping the Republican effort to dismantle the EPA’s authority. A few legal scholars have opined that it could. However, it does not rewrite the Clean Air Act’s definition of a pollutant.

The final lesson from all of this?

motor mouth: the supreme court v. the epa

The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C. Photo by Getty

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We have a Supreme Court with two members — Thomas and Roberts — who voted against the original decision to force the EPA to regulate automotive greenhouse gas emissions. Trump’s Three Stooges, meanwhile, would seem ready to accede to pretty much anything the Republican party puts before them. More importantly, the Republican majority would seem to think that all government agencies should act only on the very specific direction of Congress. And, to top it all off, if Dobbs (Roe v. Wade) is any indication, they have scant respect for precedent.

In the end, I have absolutely no idea whether any Supreme Court challenge to Massachusetts v. EPA would be successful. But I am pretty sure that someone is going to try.

Author’s note: As I said, it’s impossible to know what the consequence of all these legal meanderings might be. After all, who among us would have predicted that the banning of abortion would actually turn voters against the GOP?

What I do know is that, shortly after I finished writing this piece, California announced it was banning the sale of internal-combustion engines after 2035. More importantly, depending on your source, estimates suggest that as few as four but as many as 15 other states will follow in the Golden State’s lead. That could, again depending on your sources, result in as much as 40 per cent of the American automobile-consuming public living in states where they are strictly forbidden from buying an ICE-powered vehicle, while the other 60 per cent would have absolutely no federal standards regulating automotive CO2 tailpipe emissions at all.

Does that dichotomy sound familiar? If Texas threatens to stop California-plated BEVs at its border — so they don’t overwhelm their pathetic power grid! — then the parallels with Roe v. Wade would be complete.


Join Road & Track and Car and Driver on Our Annual Car of the Year Tests

Check out today's coolest new cars alongside editors at Performance Car of the Year, Lightning Lap, and 10Best Awards.

View more: Join Road & Track and Car and Driver on Our Annual Car of the Year Tests

Satisfying Subaru SUVs That People Love Driving and Owning

Satisfying Subaru SUVs that people love driving include the 2022 Crosstrek The 2022 Forester is another Satisfying Subaru SUV that people love Don’t overlook the 2022 Outback for a stress-free driving experience Subaru makes a reliable and safe sport utility vehicle, but that’s not all. These Satisfying Subaru SUVs ...

View more: Satisfying Subaru SUVs That People Love Driving and Owning

Holiday Rambler Eclipse RV Debuts With Theater Seats, Drop-Down Loft

It’s available with three different floor plans.

View more: Holiday Rambler Eclipse RV Debuts With Theater Seats, Drop-Down Loft

Genesis prices 2023 G80 electric car at $81,000, expands EVs to more states

Genesis on Thursday expanded the breadth and availability of its electric car lineup on its path to becoming a fully electric automaker by 2030. The luxury brand’s newest car, the 2023 Electrified Genesis G80, will cost $80,920 (including a $1,095 destination fee) when it goes on sale in September. The ...

View more: Genesis prices 2023 G80 electric car at $81,000, expands EVs to more states

This C5 Corvette Turned Off-Roader Could be Yours For Small Bucks

Photo: Caleb Hodshire/Facebook Fans of the Chevrolet Corvette and off-road vehicles now have a golden opportunity to combine their two passions for a small amount of money. A tuning enthusiast in Illinois, who specializes in Corvette conversions, is selling on Marketplace a fifth-generation (C5) 1999 Corvette built to venture ...

View more: This C5 Corvette Turned Off-Roader Could be Yours For Small Bucks

Audi heads to F1, 2025 Cadillac Celestiq, 2023 Electrified Genesis G80: Today's Car News

Audi confirmed it will enter F1 for the 2026 season. The automaker will team with a thus far unknown chassis partner to provide power units that will be built in Germany and run on synthetic fuel. Alfa Rome announced it will split with Sauber, and all points sign to Audi ...

View more: Audi heads to F1, 2025 Cadillac Celestiq, 2023 Electrified Genesis G80: Today's Car News

Genesis expands GV60, an electric SUV, availability to four more US states

Where is the Genesis GV60 available to buy Electrek’s Take Now might be your chance if you’ve been waiting to buy the Genesis GV60 EV SUV. The Korean luxury automaker announced Tuesday that its flagship electric SUV, the GV60, will be available in four more US states starting in ...

View more: Genesis expands GV60, an electric SUV, availability to four more US states

Our Long-Term 2022 Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing Is off to an Unforgettable Start

With our 668-hp, six-speed-manual sports sedan, the highs are high, and the lows are low.

View more: Our Long-Term 2022 Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing Is off to an Unforgettable Start

Dodge goes electric in style | Autoblog Podcast #744

Tested: Best Car Vacuums for 2022

China: Power to the people or to the carmakers?

Tesla premium connectivity through Starlink V2 confirmed

2022 Ford F-150 Lightning strapped to dyno despite challenges

1983 DeLorean DMC-12 with 5,397 miles for sale

Numbers of Koenigsegg CC850s increase to 70 due to high demand

Tech Deep Dive: What Makes the New Porsche GT3 RS the Most Extreme 911 Ever

4 Terrible 2022 Subcompact SUVs That Consumer Reports Predicts Owners Will Hate

Xiaomi in talks with BAIC to produce electric cars, says Bloomberg

Audi Has Decided to Enter Formula 1 in 2026 After Much Speculation

North Dakota Swing Ahead For WoO: What To Watch For