WASHINGTON, Nov 4 - Senate Majority Leader John Thune and several senior Republican senators asked a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to overturn a federal judge's ruling that concluded the Environmental Protection Agency likely acted improperly when it referred California's vehicle emissions waivers to Congress for possible repeal.
The EPA had, under the Clean Air Act, granted California authority to set its own emissions standards for cars and trucks as well as for lawn-and-garden equipment. In June, the agency transmitted those waivers to Congress for potential repeal under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). A U.S. district court judge subsequently found that the EPA's action was likely unlawful.
In August, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell criticized the EPA's legal posture, writing that the agency had urged the court to "engage in Orwellian doublethink" by seeking judicial approval while downplaying serious inconsistencies in its own arguments. Howell added that such tactics may appear clever as policy maneuvers but ultimately "undermine honest compliance with the law."
Senators filing the appeal include Republicans John Barrasso, Tom Cotton and Shelley Moore Capito. They argued that Judge Howell "did not merely usurp Congress’s authority to administer its internal rules - the court brazenly did so in the face of an express statutory restriction." The senators are asking the appeals court to reverse the district court's decision.
California had sued to block the EPA's referral, contending in federal court that sending the waivers to the Senate under the CRA was unlawful because waivers are not regulations subject to CRA review. Republican lawmakers subsequently introduced measures in August to repeal several of California's rules under the CRA following the EPA referrals. The CRA process permits repeal by a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally required for most legislation.
Officials say the Senate had been expected to vote on some of the four California rules in September but did not do so, and under parliamentary rules the chamber has effectively run out of time for those votes.
The dispute occurs against the backdrop of the Trump administration's broader efforts to limit California's ability to require more electric and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Federal actions have included rules that critics say make it easier for automakers to sell more gas-powered cars and trucks while increasing costs for purchasing electric vehicles. The EPA referrals and any successful repeal would have far-reaching consequences: repealing the waivers would have barred California indefinitely from regulating tailpipe emissions and would make it difficult for a future Democratic president to restore the state's regulatory powers.
Last year, Congress rescinded California's authority to prohibit gas-powered vehicles after 2035 following lobbying from automakers including Toyota and General Motors and other industry groups seeking relief from state emissions regulations. That congressional action followed an earlier EPA transmission of waivers to Congress for repeal, and a separate legal challenge to that action remains pending.
Context and legal stakes
The core legal question is whether the EPA's transmission of California waivers to Congress constitutes a referral of regulations subject to the CRA. If courts uphold the district court's finding, it would constrain the EPA's use of the CRA route for waivers. If the appeals court reverses, it could clear the way for congressional consideration of such referrals and potentially for repeal measures to proceed.
Next steps
The appeal moves the dispute to a federal appeals court, where judges will examine the district court's interpretation of statutory limits and the EPA's authority to refer waivers. Meanwhile, unresolved legal challenges related to past congressional actions on California's regulatory authority remain active.