A federal judge on Feb. 19 questioned the argument by California and other states seeking to override a congressional decision rescinding a waiver that allowed the Golden State to impose tough vehicle emissions standards.

In Oakland, California, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. suggested both that California was making a legally untested argument and that there was “some irregularity” in the process Congress used to take away California’s power to administer its own emissions regime.

At the hearing, Gilliam was considering a motion by the federal government to dismiss the California-led lawsuit that aimed to reinstate the state’s standards.

California and other states sued after Congress voted to rescind federal Clean Air Act waivers that allowed the state to enact its own tailpipe emissions regulations, ones that are stricter than federal regulations. Several states have adopted California’s regulations.

The repeal of the waivers was passed under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn federal regulations and rules by passing a joint resolution of disapproval by a simple majority in each congressional chamber.

When President Donald Trump signed the congressional measure in June 2025, he characterized it as blocking California’s “attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”

“Our Constitution does not allow one State special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire Nation,” he said at the time.

California wants to compel automakers to sell 100 percent electric vehicles or other zero-emission vehicles in the state by 2035.

If California prevails in the lawsuit, U.S. automakers may be required to comply with California’s policies mandating electric vehicles and federal policies that, under Trump, withdraw previous federal support for electric vehicles.

California argues in court documents that Congress unconstitutionally targeted it and used the Congressional Review Act improperly by labeling the waivers as rules. This classification runs afoul of pre-Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy that held such waivers were exempt from the act, according to the state.

The federal government argues in court documents that the Constitution allows Congress to enact nationwide vehicle emissions standards even if they conflict with state laws, as Congress did when it rescinded the waivers.

On Feb. 19, the federal district court heard oral argument on the federal government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Robert Stander told Gilliam that California and the other states lacked standing to challenge the repeal of the waivers because any injury they might suffer was “widely speculative.”

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

Stander said that if Congress had passed a statute saying the state regulations were preempted or overridden, that would be constitutional, but because Congress chose to disapprove the waivers, “suddenly” that is a “flagrant constitutional violation.”

California Deputy Attorney General Elaine Meckenstock told the court that the state needs to control emissions because it has a “severe air pollution problem” that it has been regulating since the 1950s.

Chances are the state will be back in court again in the future, so “we need to know what law applies,” she said.

Congress has only disapproved EPA actions three times in more than 60 years, “so the idea that it’s speculative that if the EPA did that again, Congress would do the same thing, just doesn’t fly,” she said.

The disapproval of the state waivers by Congress targets the state, which is forbidden by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, Meckenstock said.

The 10th Amendment states, “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Gilliam told Meckenstock that the 10th Amendment-based theory “has never actually been applied to invalidate legislation.”

Meckenstock agreed, adding “I don’t think that’s a problem for us” because the Supreme Court has recognized that “unprecedented action by the federal government against states gives rise to 10th Amendment claims, and so that’s exactly what we have here.”

Gilliam concluded the hearing by saying he would try to rule on the motion to dismiss soon, but added the case would likely go on after his ruling.

“The case is ultimately going to be finalized in the court of appeals,” the judge said.

The court hearing came a week after the EPA withdrew a finding that served as the basis for federal climate regulations.

The EPA announced on Feb. 12 that it would repeal a 2009 rule known as the endangerment finding that gave the federal government authority to regulate six varieties of greenhouse gas emissions that are alleged to pose a danger to public health and the climate.

The repeal affects all greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. Environmental groups and others filed suit against the EPA in federal court on Feb. 18 to overturn the regulatory change.

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers called California’s lawsuit “frivolous” and said Trump has “canceled unpopular green-energy subsidies that wasted Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Feb. 20, 2026, in The Epoch Times.