SCOTUS Continues California Vehicle Emissions Case Despite Request From Trump Administration
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided not to pause an upcoming case regarding California emission policies. The Court has yet to hear oral arguments, but the Trump administration asked the court to pause the case in light of anticipated policy changes at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In brief, the first Trump administration revoked a waiver allowing California to set its own emission standards, which the Biden administration reinstated in 2022. Presumably, the second Trump administration will again revoke California's waiver, rendering the underlying case moot.
In light of this, why is SCOTUS still hearing the case? First, let's get into the history of California's emission standards.
Special Treatment? California Emission Policies and the EPA.
With an economy that is larger than that of almost all other countries, California passes some laws that seem like the actions of a sovereign nation as opposed to those of one state out of 50. This is perhaps best evidenced by its regulation of the automotive industry.
California has long been at the forefront of fighting for cleaner air. Faced with the infamous smog of Los Angeles, it was the first state to impose tailpipe emission standards in 1966. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was formed in 1967, the same year the Federal Air Quality Act was enacted. This gave California the authority to have different air quality rules due to its unique weather, geography, and expanding populace.
Despite ferocious opposition from auto manufacturers who insisted that it "couldn't be done," California led the initiative to make catalytic converters mandatory on all vehicles by 1975. The state went on to demand cleaner fuel and push for the development and production of electric zero-emission vehicles.
California's higher standards for vehicle emissions have been a part of the automotive industry for decades. Most vehicles note this on the emissions sticker mounted under the hood, which designates that the vehicle meets both U.S. and California standards.
Just Looking for Some California Justice
California again set stricter vehicle emissions regulations during the Biden administration. Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of Valero Energy, and several other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the EPA contesting the EPA waiver that allowed California to do this.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's claim that an EPA waiver, given to California allowing the state to set its own greenhouse gas restrictions and to adopt a zero-emission-vehicle mandate, would be injurious to third-party fuel producers. The ruling stated that the plaintiffs hadn't established that vacating the EPA's waiver would have any effect on automakers.
The legislation at the crux of the legal battle is the Clean Air Act, specifically parts of Section 209. Under section 209(a), no state can adopt or enforce emission standards on new vehicles. The exception to section 209(a) is provided in section 209(b), which informs that only a state that has had standards for new car emissions in place since before March 30, 1966, is eligible for a waiver. That would be California.
Referring to California's environmental demands as something from a "junior-varsity EPA," the filing asserts that California's claim to require certain emission standards for new vehicles to meet global climate-change conditions is bogus because the state alone wouldn't have a discernible effect.
The plaintiffs also charge that California's mandate to require 100% zero-emission electric vehicles by 2036 would clearly be injurious to both auto manufacturers and third-party interests such as fuel producers and fuel merchants. The filing claims that the EPA overstepped its authority in granting California such a sweeping waiver.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this term. As noted, despite anticipated policy changes that would likely benefit Diamond Alternative Energy, SCOTUS declined to pause further action in the case.
That's Not To Say California Will Have Tougher Emissions Standards
In asking the Court to reconsider, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the EPA was reconsidering the Biden Administration's 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver. What's more, in light of an expected lack of cooperation from the new regime, California has decided to abandon other proposed clean-air rules despite already having EPA waivers. These included phasing out the use of diesel trucks.
Considering that California has preemptively acceded to the Trump administration's anticipated changes, and the Trump administration requested a delay, SCOTUS's choice of not pausing the case may seem curious. However, SCOTUS' failure to pause the case is not necessarily evidence that SCOTUS will uphold the D.C. Circuit's ruling.
Instead, it's likely that SCOTUS wants to rule on the issue once and for all, preventing the back-and-forth policy changes of the last six years. This could very well involve siding with Diamond Alternative Energy and preventing California from enacting stricter emissions standards than the EPA in the future, regardless of the administration. It could also be the reverse.
Either way, SCOTUS' decision could have large ramifications for fuel emissions standards not just in California, but throughout the U.S.
Related Resources
- Skies Darken for the EPA's Authority (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- The Clean Air Act "Treatment as States" Rule (FindLaw's Law Library)
- SCOTUS Limits EPA Emission Control Powers (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
