New York Times publishes leaked supreme court memos on 2016 clean power plan

The New York Times published leaked internal Supreme Court memos from 2016 on Saturday, revealing the justices' debate leading to a stay on President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed colleagues for swift action in the documents. The memos highlight concerns over the EPA rule's implementation amid lower court proceedings.

The memos, including a 'Memorandum to the Conference' from Roberts' chambers, show his push against the Clean Power Plan, an EPA rule aimed at shifting states' energy generation toward greener technology to combat climate change. Industry groups and Republican-led states challenged the plan, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied an emergency stay and scheduled oral arguments. Plaintiffs then sought Supreme Court intervention before that hearing, resulting in a 5-4 stay that halted the rule's enforcement despite compliance deadlines years away—2018 for states and 2022 for fossil fuel companies, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his memo. Justice Samuel Alito also weighed in, warning that failing to act could undermine the court's authority and institutional legitimacy, citing EPA comments as treating the rule as irreversible without court intervention. Roberts quoted an EPA administrator's interview expressing confidence in the plan's embedding into the system regardless of Congress, writing: 'I am of the mind that a rule designed to transform a substantial swath of the nation’s economy should be tested by this Court before it is presented as a fait accompli. But it seems that the EPA is sufficiently confident of this rule’s immediate implications that not even the combined efforts of Congress and the President could reverse its effects.' Memos from Justices Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor also surfaced, with Kagan previously calling the one-paragraph stay unprecedented. As first reported by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak in The New York Times, these documents shed light on the origins of the court's 'shadow docket' practice for emergency rulings.

ተያያዥ ጽሁፎች

Symbolic photorealistic depiction of U.S. Supreme Court 6-3 ruling invalidating Trump's IEEPA tariffs, with gavel smashing documents.
በ AI የተሰራ ምስል

Supreme Court 6-3 Rules Trump's IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful, Applying Major-Questions Doctrine

በAI የተዘገበ በ AI የተሰራ ምስል

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources v. Trump that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion invoked the major-questions doctrine to limit executive power over taxation, while concurring liberal justices emphasized statutory text and legislative history. The decision, expedited due to ongoing tariff revenue collection, spares some targeted duties but introduces uncertainty amid Trump's vows for alternatives.

The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision on Friday ruling that President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unconstitutional. Trump responded by announcing new 10 percent global tariffs under a different statute, later raising them to 15 percent. The European Union has paused a recent trade deal with the US amid the resulting uncertainty.

በAI የተዘገበ

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that President Trump cannot use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to impose broad-scale tariffs, prompting immediate responses from the administration and political figures. Trump signed a 15% global tariff under a different law the next day and criticized the court on Monday. The decision has sparked debates over its political implications ahead of the midterms and the State of the Union address.

The Justice Department has reversed its course and vowed to appeal a decision involving four major law firms. These firms had challenged President Trump's punitive executive orders. The move comes after an initial effort to abandon the appeal was withdrawn.

በAI የተዘገበ

The American Energy Institute has released a report alleging political bias in a climate science chapter of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a guide for federal judges. The Federal Judicial Center removed the chapter from its version, but the National Academies continues to publish it online. National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt defended the decision, citing the joint development process.

The US government rescinded a rule on Wednesday that allowed electric vehicles to count as having artificially high fuel-economy values under Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Analysts say this rollback pushes the US auto industry further towards petrol cars, discourages EV innovation, and gives China a competitive edge. Environmental groups criticise the move as harming American families' long-term interests for short-term profits to auto and oil giants.

በAI የተዘገበ እውነት ተፈትሸ

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a closely watched dispute over whether federal law blocks state-court claims seeking damages from oil and gas companies for climate-change-related harms. The justices also directed the parties to address whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision at this stage of the litigation.

 

 

 

ይህ ድረ-ገጽ ኩኪዎችን ይጠቀማል

የእኛን ጣቢያ ለማሻሻል ለትንታኔ ኩኪዎችን እንጠቀማለን። የእኛን የሚስጥር ፖሊሲ አንብቡ የሚስጥር ፖሊሲ ለተጨማሪ መረጃ።
ውድቅ አድርግ