The justices agreed to decide whether industry groups have suffered the sort of injury that gave them standing to sue over an unusual waiver.
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider whether business groups may challenge an unusual federal program that lets California set its own limits on tailpipe emissions to combat climate change.
The groups, including fuel producers and sellers, told the justices that the court’s intervention was needed to prevent California from effectively setting national policy. “Without this court’s immediate review,” their petition seeking review said, “California’s unlawful standards will continue to dictate the composition of the nation’s automobile market.”
The challengers asked the court to decide two questions: whether they had suffered the sort of injuries that gave them standing to sue and whether the Environmental Protection Agency program granting California a waiver to set its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions was lawful.
The court agreed to decide only the first question, on standing, and did not act on a separate petition from 17 states asking the court to rule on whether Congress had violated the Constitution in empowering the E.P.A. to give California a special status.
The law authorizes the E.P.A. to grant California a waiver from nationwide standards even though other states and localities are not free to set their own limits. In their petition, the challengers said the law improperly deputizes California to act as a “junior-varsity E.P.A.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an unsigned opinion in April, rejected the lawsuit, ruling that the challengers lacked standing. The appeals court reasoned that fuel producers would not be directly harmed by the waiver, which directly affects vehicle manufacturers.
