D.C. District Court Blocks EPA’s Unlawful Reclassification of Clean Air Act Waivers as “Rules”
By Morgan Bilecek
President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin have attempted an appalling and illegal move to dismantle California’s clean air standards, which seek to prevent pollution from spewing into the air. To pull this off, EPA reclassified as “rules” six waivers that the agency had issued to California between 2009 and 2025 that allowed California to adopt stronger emission standards than those imposed by the federal government. EPA has reclassified the waivers because Congress can use an expedited procedure under the Congressional Review Act to overturn rules. This strategy, if allowed to succeed, could also be used to eliminate many other agency actions that previously have not been subject to the Congressional Review Act.
The good news is that California is successfully fighting back. In the lawsuit California v. EPA, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued two preliminary injunctions (here and here) against EPA related to the six waivers, explaining that California was likely to succeed on its challenge to the reclassification. This follows the filing of a separate case against EPA in the Northern District of California over three waivers submitted to Congress as rules in 2025, which were overturned after disapproval resolutions passed both chambers and were signed by President Trump.
In the case involving the six waivers, the court identified a fundamental contradiction in EPA’s position. The agency told Congress that it had determined that the waivers were “rules” subject to the CRA, but when California challenged the reclassification of the waivers in court, EPA argued that it had not actually reclassified the waivers at all and had merely submitted reports to Congress. The court found those explanations irreconcilable and concluded that EPA had reclassified the waivers and that the reclassification was subject to judicial review.
The court then examined whether EPA had lawfully undertaken the reclassification and found serious problems. EPA did not explain its departure from its longstanding position that the waiver orders were not CRA rules, did not identify any statutory authority allowing it to reclassify the orders, and did not follow any rulemaking procedures. At the preliminary injunction stage, the court concluded that California was likely to succeed on its claims that the reclassification was arbitrary and capricious, exceeded EPA’s statutory authority, and was taken without observance of procedures required by law.
The decision is preliminary, and the case remains pending. An appeal on the preliminary injunctions has also been filed in the D.C. Circuit. For now, EPA is enjoined from giving effect to the reclassification of the six waivers, and all other similar reclassifications, and is required to take all steps within its control to restore the status quo as to the waivers. CRA resolutions of disapproval have already been filed for the six waivers subject to the injunction, and the House of Representatives has already voted to disapprove the two waivers at issue in the court’s second preliminary injunction.
The outcome of California v. EPA will affect more than just the fate of the California waivers currently before the court. It could establish whether agencies can use the CRA to find an end run around the ordinary administrative process for a host of regulatory actions that are not “rules,” all to serve a current administration’s political goals. Congress should block these resolutions from moving any further through the legislative process because this is an improper use of the CRA and the court has found that California has a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits.