The U.S. Supreme Court just handed a major defeat to California’s climate radicals, and even one liberal justice joined the conservative wing to make it happen. In a 7-2 ruling, the court cleared the way for the state’s energy producers to move forward with their lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, targeting California’s extreme green energy mandates.

At the heart of the case is the state’s requirement that electric vehicles dominate the market by 2035, part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to force California into “carbon neutrality.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, made it clear these mandates are not just heavy-handed but potentially illegal.

“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” Kavanaugh wrote. “In light of this Court’s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”

Kavanaugh also pointed out that the EPA has shifted its own legal arguments over time, a fact that did not help its case.

“EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles,” he noted.

This ruling comes on the heels of President Donald Trump’s decisive action earlier this month, when he signed three resolutions wiping out key parts of California’s aggressive green agenda. The Trump administration’s move was a massive blow to Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, and his push to transform California into the most “progressive” climate state in the country.

“This case involves California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new California regulations,” Kavanaugh explained. “As relevant here, those regulations generally require automakers (i) to limit average greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold in the State and (ii) to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.”

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the group behind the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a major victory.

“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” Thompson told the Daily Caller. “California’s EV mandates are unlawful and bad for our country. Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles or ban new gas car sales, all of which the state has attempted to do through its intentional misreading of statute.”

It has been a rough couple of days for the California governor as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also overruled a lower court judge and allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of the California National Guard.

Trump expressed gratitude to an appeals court for its decision allowing him to maintain the deployment of the Guard in Los Angeles.

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” Trump posted on his Truth Social page. “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration’s motion to stay a ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, according to The Washington Post.

Earlier Thursday, Breyer claimed Trump had acted unconstitutionally in federalizing elements of the California National Guard to help protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as well as federal property, citing the 10th Amendment.

By dispatching the Guard, Breyer ruled, Trump had acted improperly, “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”