2024 Term of Court:
Federal courts frequently have to deal with the jurisdiction or power they have under the federal Constitution. The Constitution gives federal courts power over
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
U.S. Const., Article III, Section 2
In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency (US SupCt Slip Opinion of June 20, 2025) the United States Supreme Court held that the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction over a “petition for review” filed by fossil fuel sellers against an EPA modification of one of its legal standards governing permissible emissions from automobiles. The fuel sellers complained that the EPA’s illegal modification of its rule would probably depress the consumer market for fossil fuels, and would therefore come at a significant financial cost to the sellers. The EPA defended the petition on the ground of lack of federal court jurisdiction under Article III. The Supreme Court analyzed the EPA’s jurisdictional defense via its frequently cited “standing to sue” doctrine, wherein the Court says that Article III jurisdiction requires a plaintiff to allege, and then to prove, 1) an “injury in fact,” 2) “caused” by the defendant, and 3) that the court can “redress,” i.e., remedy, repair, or fix the “injury.” The Court found that the fuel sellers’ petition for review met all of those jurisdictional requirements under Article III of the federal Constitution.
Comment: The fuel sellers’ “petition for review” plainly presented a “controversy” to which the United States, via the EPA, was a “party,” i.e., the “opponent” of the “petition.” See “Controversy, N., Sense 2.b.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, March 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1408707554. The Court of Appeals clearly had jurisdiction over that “controversy” under Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. The Court’s extensive discussion of its “standing to sue” doctrine was unnecessary.
Dan D. Rhea
RECENT RULINGS 