Supreme Court declines to hear case on California emissions waiver
California’s vehicle emissions waiver survived another legal challenge after the Supreme Court declined to review a lawsuit against the waiver’s constitutionality.
The legal challenge was filed by 17 states against EPA in 2022, arguing that EPA’s California emissions waiver was unconstitutional. An appeals court unanimously rejected the states’ challenge, and the Supreme Court refused to review the matter.
California is the only U.S. state allowed to set its own vehicle emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA grants California its emissions autonomy through waivers.
These waivers often receive legal challenges. According to the climate change litigation database by Columbia Law School, over seven lawsuits targeted California’s emissions regulations since its reinstatement in 2022.
The plaintiffs targeting California’s standards include major trucking industry groups: the Western States Trucking Association, the California Trucking Association, the Nebraska Trucking Association, and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association all participated in legal battles against the waiver since 2022.
History of the states’ lawsuit
The lawsuit is part of a yearslong partisan back-and-forth on California’s Clean Air Act waiver.
In 2019, the Trump administration revoked California’s Clean Air Act waiver. The Biden administration reversed the move in March 2022 when EPA reinstated the California waiver.
See also: Fleets Explained: Emissions regulations
By May 2022, a group of 17 states’ Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit against EPA requesting that the Court of Appeals block the waiver. The states claimed that the emissions waiver violated the state sovereignty clause implied by the Constitution.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the states’ challenge, disagreeing with their constitutional argument and additionally finding that the states did not have standing.
The states asked the Supreme Court to review the decision. The Supreme Court declined to take on the case.
