We will hear argument this morning in case 24-7 diamond alternative energy versus the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Wall?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the EPA waiver here allows California to limit the number of vehicles that run on liquid fuel.

Petitioners make and sell liquid fuel. So vacating the waiver would redress

their injuries in two ways. First, as Justice Kavanaugh explained in Energy Future Coalition,

part of the injury in a case like this one is the denial even to compete in the marketplace.

Vacating the waiver redresses that injury perfectly. Indeed, it's the only thing that can.

Second, even setting aside that clear rule, this Court recognized in Department of Commerce

that litigants may rely on common-sense inferences about third-party behavior.

It doesn't take much common sense to figure out that if California limits the number of cars that can run on gas,

automakers will make fewer cars that run on gas. Remember that we're here because California

asked for and EPA granted a waiver because California said it needs its own standards.

California even intervened by telling the court below that its standards are likely to reduce fuel consumption.

The common sense inference is that this waiver matters in the real world, not that it is completely

meaningless.

But if we needed hard evidence, we had plenty of it, five kinds.

One, our declaration showing that California's standards have historically harmed us.

Two, California's and EPA's actions and statements in 2021 and 2022, saying that their standards are likely to reduce fuel consumption.

Three, California's two expert declarations from CARB officials in 2022, saying that their standards are likely to decrease

fuel consumption.

Four, the intervening automakers admission that without the waiver, some of their competitors

were likely to back away from electrification.

...