No. 24-7October Term 2024Decided Jun 20, 2025
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
The Supreme Court ruled that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA-approved California regulations requiring more electric vehicles, finding that the producers sufficiently demonstrated that invalidating the rules would likely redress their economic injuries.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Jun 20, 2025
- What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA-approved California regulations requiring more electric vehicles, finding that the producers sufficiently demonstrated that invalidating the rules would likely redress their economic injuries. The decision reversed a lower court holding that the producers failed to prove automakers would manufacture fewer electric vehicles in the absence of the regulations.
Question presented
Do the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit / Decision released Jun 20, 2025
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Documents
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary-source trail available.
- Note
- Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Mar 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials8
Supreme Court docket 24-7
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Mar 30, 2026
CourtListener docket record
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | Mar 8, 2026
opinion
opinion | Jun 20, 2025
Opinion
opinion | Jun 20, 2025
Oral Arguments - Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA
audio | Apr 23, 2025
Petition
brief | Jul 2, 2024