The supreme court is in session – and every case is potentially a climate one

Sackett v EPA - an attack on the Clean Water Act - is by no means the only threat to climate policy before the court

The supreme court is back in session, and once again corporate interests and Republican attorneys general are taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this time via an attack on the Clean Water Act. But given the current bench's proclivity for expanding corporate rights while restricting civil rights, that case - Sackett v EPA - is by no means the only threat to climate policy before the court.

National Pork Producers Council v Ross, for example, is ostensibly about whether California's law regarding pork sold in the state, requiring the humane treatment of the animals in states it came from, but could also potentially threaten states' abilities to set renewable energy targets. Two university affirmative action cases (Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v President and Fellows of Harvard College), have implications for the Biden administration's environmental justice programs. Brackeen v Haaland, challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, is a direct threat to tribal sovereignty and a potential boon for fossil fuel companies that would rather not have to deal with Native land and water rights. And of course the two big democracy cases - Moore v Harper, which would give states the ability to run roughshod over federal elections, and Merrill v Milligan, which would deliver yet another nail in the coffin that is the withering Voting Rights Act - would likely be catastrophic for climate policy.