Judge Blocks EPA Move to Put Four California Emissions Waivers Before Congress

Court orders EPA to restore the status quo

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from treating four California Clean Air Act waivers as rules that Congress could repeal through an expedited process.

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell directed the EPA to take every step within its control to restore the status quo that existed before the agency's June 12 announcement. The court specifically ordered the agency to withdraw or correct that announcement and barred it from taking further action to reclassify California's Section 209(b) waiver orders as rules.

The decision preserves California's authority under the four challenged waivers while the lawsuit proceeds. It does not permanently settle the dispute, and the administration may appeal or ask the court to modify the preliminary relief.

Read the source: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: September 2 memorandum opinion ↗

Four waivers covering vehicles and small engines are at issue

The case concerns four waivers EPA originally granted between 2009 and the end of 2024: California's 2009 greenhouse-gas standards for new motor vehicles; the 2013 Advanced Clean Cars I program; EPA's 2022 reinstatement of the 2013 program after a partial withdrawal during Trump's first administration; and amendments to the state's small off-road-engine standards covering equipment such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, generators and pressure washers.

Under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, California may seek federal permission to enforce vehicle-emissions standards that are stricter than national requirements. Other states may adopt qualifying California standards, which gives the state's programs consequences well beyond its borders.

EPA announced June 12 that it had determined the four waivers were rules under the Congressional Review Act and transmitted them to Congress. The agency argued that previous administrations should have submitted them and that lawmakers were entitled to review them. California sued ten days later, contending that EPA had unlawfully converted case-specific waiver orders into rules.

Read the source: Reuters: Judge blocks EPA effort to send California emissions waivers to Congress ↗

Judge rejects EPA's attempt to use two conflicting labels

Howell found California likely to succeed on its claim that EPA's reclassification was unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. The opinion emphasized that EPA had historically treated Section 209(b) waiver decisions as adjudicatory orders rather than rules and had repeatedly stated that the Congressional Review Act did not apply.

The court rejected EPA's position that the agency could describe the waivers to Congress as final rules while denying that the reclassification carried legal consequences subject to judicial review. Howell also denied motions by EPA and two petroleum-industry trade associations to dismiss the lawsuit.

The Congressional Review Act lets Congress disapprove covered agency rules through fast-track procedures and generally prevents an agency from issuing a substantially similar rule later without new legislation. The court found that forcing California's long-standing waivers into that process created immediate legal uncertainty and required the state to divert resources toward backup air-quality plans.

Read the source: EPA: June 12 announcement transmitting four California waivers to Congress ↗

What the injunction does not decide

This ruling does not reinstate California's separate Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks or Omnibus low-nitrogen-oxide waivers that Congress and President Trump repealed in 2025. California and other states are challenging those actions in a different lawsuit.

The opinion also discusses two port and marine-vessel waivers EPA transmitted in July, after this case began. But the directive to restore the pre-June status quo expressly identifies the four waivers challenged in California's complaint; the decision should not be described as a final ruling resolving every legal question surrounding the two later submissions.

No court has ruled that Congress can never legislate on California emissions policy. The immediate holding is narrower: while this injunction remains in force, EPA cannot use its reclassification of these waiver orders to place them into the Congressional Review Act's expedited repeal machinery.

Read the source: Reuters: California's June lawsuit challenging the EPA action ↗

California wins immediate protection, not the final case

Reuters reported that lawmakers had been preparing to vote on the four waivers as soon as September. Wednesday's order blocks that route by requiring EPA to undo the classification on which expedited congressional review depended.

EPA did not provide an immediate response to Reuters after the ruling. The agency's June statement maintained that transmitting the waivers was a statutory obligation and argued that California standards impose national costs. Those remain the administration's policy claims; the court has now found the legal mechanism likely unlawful at this preliminary stage.

The bottom line is concrete: California's four waivers remain in place, EPA must correct the step that exposed them to fast-track repeal, and the underlying lawsuit continues. A preliminary injunction is a major legal setback for the administration, but it is not a final judgment or the end of possible appellate review.

Read the source: Wikimedia Commons: Los Angeles freeway photograph and CC BY 3.0 license ↗

About the photograph

The lead image is an authentic 2006 file photograph showing traffic on U.S. Route 101 entering downtown Los Angeles on a smoggy day. Photographer Downtowngal released it under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. It illustrates the vehicle-emissions setting and does not depict the September 2 court proceedings, Judge Howell, EPA officials or any current pollution measurement.