The Environmental Protection Agency has granted California over 100 waivers for it to set various standards, including for zero-emission vehicles.
The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge by 17 Republican-led states that argued that California’s unique authority to set stricter tailpipe emissions standards is unconstitutional.
With Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the high court on Dec. 16
denied an appeal from the attorneys general of Ohio and 16 other states, who in their
petition challenged the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act’s provision allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant special waivers to California to set vehicle emissions standards that are tougher than those in other states.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves in place a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding the EPA’s decision to grant California waivers and signaling continued deference to the Clean Air Act’s framework that, over the years, has granted California more than 100 waivers for various standards, including for zero-emission vehicles. The significance of California’s waivers extends beyond its borders as the Clean Air Act allows other states to choose to follow California’s stricter standards, a subset of which has been adopted by dozens of states.
The Epoch Times has reached out to counsel of both parties with requests for comment.
Although the Supreme Court’s Dec. 16 decision effectively ends the constitutional challenge to California’s waivers brought by the GOP-led states, the high court
agreed on Dec. 13 to review the narrower procedural question of whether oil and gas groups have standing to challenge the waivers. The outcome of this narrower case could influence the ability of similar groups to bring future legal challenges against California’s special authority under the Clean Air Act.
In their request for Supreme Court review, the GOP-led states argued that in the Clean Air Act, Congress elevated California above other states by giving it alone the power to pass certain environmental laws, in violation of the constitutional principle of equal sovereignty among states.
“The Golden State is not the golden child,” the petitioners argued in urging the Supreme Court to review the case and “correct the D.C. Circuit’s grave error in concluding that Congress can play favorites among the States.”
Congress initially
granted California the power to set stricter environmental rules in recognition of its severe air quality challenges and what it described as California’s unique status as a “laboratory” in which the state’s “pioneering” efforts to develop innovative emissions control devices could serve as a template elsewhere in the country.
As of 2024, California has used this authority to obtain more than 100 EPA waivers for new and amended state-level vehicle emissions standards, with 17 states and the District of Columbia having adopted a subset of California’s standards.
Opposition to California’s special authority to set stricter emissions standards centers on claims that it unfairly affects national markets and undermines the principle of equal treatment among states.
In 2019, the Trump administration revoked California’s waivers, arguing that uniform national standards were necessary to avoid a patchwork of regulations that could burden the auto industry. This revocation was challenged in court by California, environmental groups, and several other states. In 2022, the Biden administration
restored the waivers, prompting new legal challenges from Republican-led states and industry groups.
The D.C. Circuit Court
upheld the Biden administration’s reinstatement of the waivers in April, with the Supreme Court declining on Dec. 16 to take up the GOP-led states’ appeal and revisit the constitutional question raised in their legal challenge.
Aside from a number of legal challenges to California’s special authority, several bills have been introduced in recent Congresses that seek to modify or revoke this power.
Among the most notable legislative efforts is the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act (H.R. 1435 and its Senate companion, S. 2090), which
passed the House in September 2023 but has seen no action in the Senate. This bill seeks to prohibit the EPA from granting waivers for state standards that restrict the sale or use of internal combustion engine vehicles and would revoke waivers issued since January 2022.
A similar attempt in the previous Congress, the Revoking Engine and Vehicle Requirements Act of 2022 (H.R. 8773), sought to repeal California’s waiver authority entirely and
failed to advance.
President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to assume office on Jan. 20, 2025, has vowed to block California’s waivers.
