The US Supreme Court has put a stop to President Obama&’s Climate Initiative; the ruling comes amidst increasing demands in the US and other western nations to act on limiting green house gas emissions. The US Court&’s ruling has put an invariable halt at the climate plan that had set itself substantial targets; to cut American emissions over 30 per cent by 2032. Obama&’s Clean Power Plan was introduced last August and set achievable targets for fifty states. With flexible options inbuilt in the plan, it gave the states full authority on coming up with individualised local proposals on how best to decrease their emissions. But not all states were with President Obama; 27 states along with electricity companies and a group of coal miners sought to block the climate plan as they presumed it to be discourteous infringement on states’ rights. It is unlikely now that the fifty states would meet their target of submitting a proposal by September. With unnecessary politicking over an important and urgent issue like climate action, US states have shown utter disregard for the changing climate and responsible action that ought to follow. If the divisiveness over the issue continues, the US Supreme Court may render the plan null and thus make it useless. This is President Obama&’s last year in the Oval office and the new President in all likelihood will be required to forge new partnerships and fight undecided battles; the US Court ruling had an ideological divide, and was voted 5-4. The Supreme Court has a conservative majority and thus last year in June it halted another Obama proposal which if implemented would have regulated the levels of mercury and reduced toxic pollutants. The US Court&’s five conservative judges voted against; the Court is ideologically divided along the lines of liberalism and conservatism. The former puts excessive onus on the federal government&’s action and the latter zealously tries to limit what it describes as federal over-reach. Although US emissions standards and targets are measured and planned by its Environmental Protection Agency and should be non-partisan in nature, just as climate action ought to be non-partisan. It is essential Americans realise that action delayed is as good as action denied when it comes to climate change. The present moment is fearfully reminiscent of the US refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, once again led by the American conservative movement. President Bush was accused of taking a soft law stand on climate action, and President Obama takes the apposite hard law positions on regulating sources of greenhouse gases. The US Supreme Court should be above ideological partisanship on matters that not only concern human beings but have the fate of the planet tied to them.