California alleges that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unlawfully relabeled its Clean Air Act waivers as rules open to Congressional Review Act disapproval. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction in September 2026, and California has since moved for summary judgment. EPA and industry intervenors have filed briefs urging reversal in their consolidated appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
Latest development Nov 2, 2026
On November 2, 2026, intervenors American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit urging reversal of the preliminary injunction. They argued that the Congressional Review Act bars judicial review of EPA’s action on the waivers. California’s summary judgment motion remains pending in the district court.
Why it matters
The dispute will decide whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can relabel California’s Clean Air Act waivers as rules open to fast-track disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. The answer affects California’s power to set stricter vehicle emissions standards, the states that adopt them, and automakers’ compliance obligations.
Background
In June 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin, reclassified four Clean Air Act Section 209(b) preemption waivers, some dating back to 2009. The waivers let California set vehicle emissions standards stricter than federal requirements, and other states may also adopt those standards. EPA announced that it would treat the waivers as “rules” subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), not as adjudicatory orders, and submitted them to Congress for possible disapproval. On June 22, 2026, California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) sued EPA and Zeldin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They argued that the reclassification violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and exceeded EPA’s statutory authority.
On July 22, 2026, while the suit was pending, EPA reclassified two additional waivers, covering ocean-going ships and harbor craft, and California expanded its challenge. California argued that the waivers had always been final adjudicatory orders and that the relabeling was designed to remove APA protections and expose them to CRA disapproval. Congress had already used that fast-track process in 2025 to disapprove three earlier California waivers. California’s challenge to those disapprovals is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. EPA countered that the reclassification was unreviewable and that California had no cause of action until Congress actually passed a disapproval resolution.
On September 2, 2026, Judge Beryl A. Howell denied EPA’s motion to dismiss and granted a preliminary injunction, holding that California was likely to succeed on its APA claim. She ordered EPA to restore the waivers to their prior status as adjudicatory orders. She reasoned that the waivers could not be “rules” under the CRA unless they also qualified as rules under the APA. The ruling left open whether the CRA lets Congress strip California’s waiver authority, a question the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit answered differently in a related dispute. On September 12, 2026, Judge Howell issued a second order requiring EPA to reverse its reclassification of the two vessel waivers as CRA rules.
On September 15, 2026, EPA filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Intervenor-defendants American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute also appealed, and the D.C. Circuit docketed their appeal as No. 26-5336 on September 22, 2026. On September 23, 2026, the court consolidated that appeal with EPA’s earlier-filed appeal, No. 26-5330, and applied the briefing schedule set in that case. On October 15, 2026, California moved for summary judgment on its APA and ultra vires claims, and the motion remains pending before Judge Howell. EPA filed its opening brief in the D.C. Circuit on October 29, 2026, and the intervenors filed a brief on November 2, 2026, both urging reversal of the preliminary injunction.
Timeline 15 events
-
FilingFuel industry intervenors file brief urging reversal
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute urged the D.C. Circuit to reverse the preliminary injunction. They argued that the Congressional Review Act bars judicial review of EPA’s waiver transmittal.
Fuel Groups Say Courts Must Stay Out Of Calif. Waiver FightFuel Groups Say Courts Must Stay Out Of Calif. Waiver Fight
-
FilingEPA files opening brief in D.C. Circuit appeal
EPA urged the D.C. Circuit to reverse the preliminary injunction, arguing the district court wrongly intruded on congressional authority by blocking EPA’s waiver reclassification.
-
FilingCalifornia moves for summary judgment against EPA
California asked the district court to permanently void EPA’s reclassification of its Clean Air Act Section 209(b) waivers as Congressional Review Act rules. The motion followed the court’s earlier grant of a preliminary injunction.
-
OrderD.C. Circuit consolidates EPA and intervenors’ appeals
The court consolidated No. 26-5336 with a related, earlier-filed appeal, No. 26-5330. It ordered that the briefing schedule from a September 18, 2026, order in No. 26-5330 apply to the consolidated case.
-
OrderD.C. Circuit dockets intervenors’ appeal as No. 26-5336
The appeal by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute sought review of the district court’s preliminary injunction.
State of California v. EPA, et al 26-5336EPA Appeals Court Ruling That Restored California Waivers Supporting EV Mandate
-
AppealEPA files notice of appeal
The Trump administration appealed Judge Howell’s injunction and denial of its motion to dismiss to the D.C. Circuit.
Trump Admin Appeals Block Of EPA Repeal Of California WaiverTrump Administration Appeals Ruling Blocking EPA From Sending California Auto Emissions Rules to Congress
-
AppealEPA appeals injunction to the D.C. Circuit
The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the preliminary injunction.
Trump Admin Appeals Block Of EPA Repeal Of California WaiverState of California v. EPA, et al 26-5336
-
JudgmentJudge orders EPA to reverse two more waiver reclassifications
Judge Beryl Howell issued a second order covering two more California Clean Air Act waivers, which set vessel emissions standards for the state’s ports. It required EPA to reverse their reclassification as rules subject to the Congressional Review Act.
California Scores Second Win in Clean Air Act Waiver Fight (1)Congress Aims To Repeal Harbor Clean Air Rules, While Federal Judge Says "Stop!"Congress Must Reject Attack on Clean Air Protections for Port CommunitiesJudge Smacks Down EPA's Attempt to Revoke Six of California's Waivers
-
JudgmentCourt grants California preliminary injunction, denies motion to dismiss
Judge Howell ruled that California was likely to succeed on its APA claim and ordered EPA to restore the waivers’ prior status. She wrote that EPA had urged the court to “engage in Orwellian doublethink.”
US Judge Bars EPA Effort to Send California Vehicle Emissions Rules to CongressCourt Stalls EPA Plan to Override California's Vehicle Pollution Standards
-
JudgmentCourt grants California a preliminary injunction
Judge Howell found California likely to succeed on its APA claim, denied EPA’s motion to dismiss, and ordered EPA to restore the waivers’ prior status.
District Court Enjoins EPA From Reclassifying California's Clean Air Act WaiversJudge Blocks EPA Attempt To Repeal California Clean Air Act
-
HearingCourt hears argument on preliminary injunction motion
Judge Howell heard argument from California and Justice Department attorney Robert Stander on whether the waivers were reviewable rules or unreviewable orders.
Judge set to vaporize EPA bid to end California emissions standards
-
OtherEPA reclassifies two more California waivers as rules
EPA extended its reclassification to waivers covering equipment such as ocean-going vessels and commercial harbor craft, bringing the total number of affected waivers to six.
Judge Smacks Down EPA's Attempt to Revoke Six of California's Waivers
-
OtherEPA reclassifies two more waivers as rules
While the suit was pending, EPA submitted a report to Congress describing two additional California waivers, covering ships and harbor craft, as rules.
District Court Enjoins EPA From Reclassifying California's Clean Air Act Waivers
-
FilingCalifornia moves for a preliminary injunction
California asked the court to restore the status quo under 5 U.S.C. § 705, arguing EPA’s reclassification caused irreparable harm.
-
FilingCalifornia sues EPA over waiver reclassification
California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Air Resources Board sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They challenged EPA’s decision to treat four Clean Air Act waivers as rules subject to the Congressional Review Act.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the D.C. Circuit resolve the consolidated appeals (Nos. 26-5330 and 26-5336) of the September 2, 2026, preliminary injunction by September 30, 2027?
- D.C. Circuit affirms injunction33%
- D.C. Circuit vacates injunction22%
- Appeals dismissed or mooted22%
- Still pending on September 30, 202717%
- D.C. Circuit narrows injunction6%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 11 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely result is that the D.C. Circuit affirms Judge Howell’s preliminary injunction, at 33%, by September 30, 2027. The district court’s finding that the waivers cannot be CRA rules unless they are APA rules gets deferential review on appeal. Mootness through a summary judgment ruling is a strong alternative.
How it resolves. Resolves on the D.C. Circuit’s disposition of the consolidated preliminary injunction appeals as shown on the public docket by September 30, 2027. Affirmance in full counts as affirm. Vacatur or reversal of the injunction in full, including on reviewability grounds, counts as vacate. Affirmance in part or narrowing of the injunction’s scope counts as narrows. Dismissal as moot, for example after a final district court judgment, or voluntary dismissal counts as dismissed or mooted. No disposition by that date counts as still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. Federal government appeals of preliminary injunctions in the D.C. Circuit involving agency action and statutory review bars: Federal courts of appeals affirm roughly 80% of civil judgments overall. Preliminary injunctions on contested legal questions are reversed or vacated more often, perhaps 30% to 40%, and some PI appeals end as moot after a final judgment.
Appellate courts usually uphold preliminary injunctions under abuse-of-discretion review, but the legal questions here get de novo review. EPA and the fuel intervenors raise a substantial threshold argument that the Congressional Review Act bars judicial review. That argument, and the Sixth Circuit’s different view in a related dispute, keep vacatur a real possibility at 22%. California’s October 15, 2026, summary judgment motion is the main mootness driver. A final judgment from Judge Howell would likely supersede the injunction and moot these appeals, at 22% combined with voluntary dismissal. Briefing began in late October 2026, so argument likely falls in early to mid 2027. That leaves a meaningful chance, 17%, that no decision issues by September 30, 2027. A narrowed injunction, for example on the vessel waivers or remedy scope, remains a smaller outcome at 6%. Nothing in the record has changed since the November 4, 2026, forecast, which asked the same question, so the numbers are unchanged.
Whether the CRA’s review bar forecloses APA challenge to EPA’s transmittal · Timing of the district court ruling on summary judgment · D.C. Circuit briefing and argument schedule in 2027 · Split with the Sixth Circuit on CRA reach over waivers · Possibility of congressional disapproval resolutions changing the posture
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 5, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made