Court Stops Trump’s EPA From Trying To Kill California’s Clean Air Regulations

“Our State intends to continue its efforts to eliminate air pollution without letup and asks only that no roadblocks be put in its path.” — Republican Sen. George Murphy, 1967, quoted in decision

A federal court has halted the Trump EPA’s attempt to end California’s ability to set its own clean air standards, as it has since before the Clean Air Act was passed more than half a century ago. Although only a temporary order, the decision blocked the Trump administration from proceeding now, and it rested in part on California’s “likelihood of success” at trial.

In this case, and another still in litigation—as well as action just taken targeting harbor craft and ocean-going vessels—the EPA is reclassifying waivers granted under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as rules, and submitting them to Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), where the GOP majorities either have or will rubber stamp reject them, which will also prevent similar state regulations in the future. But as Judge Beryl Howell noted in her ruling, “The central problem for EPA is that the waivers themselves explicitly state that they are not rules.”

While there are other legal niceties involved—provisions in the CRA that limit judicial review, on the one hand, and requirements for a public process under the Administrative Procedure Act even if the waivers could be reclassified on the other—this basic fact goes to the heart of the case.

“This injunction is both very important in its own right and an excellent indicator of success for California in the other waiver cases,” Coalition for Clean Air’s policy director Bill Magavern told Random Lengths. “Judge Howell’s comprehensively researched and clearly reasoned decision vindicates the state’s position that EPA waivers are not and never have been rules, and therefore are not subject to the Congressional Review Act,” he said. “I’m sure EPA will appeal, but for now it is enjoined from classifying waivers as rules.”

“I’m relieved the court halted Trump’s sneaky attempt to block California’s clean air and climate protections,” said David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “There was no basis for Trump’s EPA and his allies in Congress to try to kill clean air protections that are essential for Californians’ health,” he told Random Lengths via email. “Everyone can breathe easier knowing that California’s strong clean car and truck standards are winning against the other side’s dirty dealings.”

“When it comes to environmental integrity, posterity demands that we act,” said California Attorney General Bonta, who brought the suit, in a statement issued just after the ruling was issued. “The bottom line is that California is taking many steps forward to protect the environment and public health while President Trump is taking six steps back.

“What is at stake is the ability of California to deliver cleaner air to its residents by setting tougher-than-federal standards for mobile sources of emissions like cars and small off-road engines—the engines covered by this decision—and trucks, ships and harbor craft, covered by related cases,” Magavern added.

The “dirty dealings” Pettit referred to include both the fossil fuel industry’s continuous opposition—both open and behind-the-scenes—as well as plans hatched in Project 2025 to undo generations of progressive legislation by illegally rewriting regulatory rules, both of which Judge Howell referenced in laying out the background for the case.

“California’s preemption waivers have been resisted at every turn by the two intervenors in this action… trade associations representing ‘fuel producers, refiners, distributors, and retailers that operate throughout the United States,” Howell noted. Their objections “were heard but overruled, and the waivers went into effect,” she wrote.

However, “The bullseye on the CAA’s long-standing preemption waivers to California has nevertheless persisted, and the torch carried by trade associations for the petroleum industry is now being lifted by EPA, in remarkable lock-step with the political planning document, referred to as ‘Project 2025’… which document outlined the precise legal steps now being employed by the EPA, namely, to bypass normal administrative and legislative processes to invalidate even long-standing federal regulatory actions” by using the CRA as it has in this case.

The CRA provides that a court cannot review actions under it, but the reclassification of waivers as rules had to take place before EPA could submit them to Congress using the CRA, so that reclassification clearly could be reviewed by the court. The EPA tried to get around this, using what Howell accurately described as “Orwellian double-think”—on one account it did reclassify the waivers (which would have required a public process). At the same time, on the other it simply submitted a report to Congress.

“EPA and its petroleum trade association intervenor-defendants invite this Court to engage in Orwellian doublethink, offering two explanations simultaneously for what the agency has done,” Howell wrote, “these two explanations are irreconcilable.”

Going on, she wrote. “EPA urges that the Court pay no attention to the language of the waiver decisions themselves or to the statutory definitions provided under the APA and CRA, and certainly pay no attention to what the agency tells Congress,” which recalls Lewis Carroll as much as George Orwell.

“For 50 years, both Democratic and Republican administrations have upheld California’s authority to enforce state emission standards, but this administration thinks it can roll back the clock and sow chaos even while our lawsuit plays out in court,” Bonta said. “Today’s decision is a key victory that rebuffs President Trump’s prior efforts. Federal emission standards should be a baseline to protect our future, not a ceiling to limit it.”