California enters uncharted territory in new lawsuit challenging Trump over vehicle emissions waiver
The state claims the president violated the Congressional Review Act. But that law doesn’t explicitly invite judicial review.
Hours after President Donald Trump signed measures nullifying waivers that allow California to set stricter vehicle air emissions limits than the federal standards, the western state and several allies filed a groundbreaking lawsuit calling the move illegal.
The federal lawsuit filed by California and nine other states claims the move exceeded the president’s legal authority and violated the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and asks the court to void the resolutions.
If left standing, the resolutions would effectively kill California’s effort to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of electric ones — and would impact several other states that have adopted California’s stricter emissions rules under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues – and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”
Legal experts have told Landmark that issues raised in the lawsuit tread on uncharted and potentially dubious legal territory.
The revocations were issued under the CRA, which allows lawmakers in a newly-formed Congress to quickly nullify recent rules after a simple majority vote. The law also has language that would suggest that judicial review of CRA actions is not allowed.
In the lawsuit, the states note that both the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously concluded the waivers aren’t technically “rules” subject to repeal under that law.
And since the Senate ignored those conclusions, breaking from precedent, the states argue that the waivers weren’t properly revoked.
Jeff Holmstead, an attorney at the law firm Bracewell and former EPA official during the Bush administration, told Landmark that he thinks the challengers have an “uphill battle.”
That’s because the CRA “clearly prohibits judicial review” of actions by Congress under the law, he said, and there likely aren’t constitutional questions around the Senate’s decision to ignore the advisories of its parliamentarian and the GAO.
(Note — Holmstead pointed out this provision of the CRA specifically: “No determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter [i.e., the CRA] shall be subject to judicial review.”)
“The resolution overturning the California waivers was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president,” he said. “I don’t see how it can be struck down in court.”
The waivers in question pertain to California’s clean car and trucks programs, which are part of the state’s big-picture plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions 85% by 2045.
The transportation sector accounts for the largest share of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, or roughly 39%.
The CAA explicitly gives California the ability to seek permission to establish stricter pollution limits than the national standards. It has received such approval numerous times in recent decades.