WASHINGTON — A significant portion of President Joe Biden’s plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions was dealt a blow in separate federal court rulings recently.
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) final rule, “National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure”, was published on Dec. 7, 2023.
It required state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to establish declining carbon dioxide (CO2) targets and report on progress towards the achievement of those targets.
The penalty for non-compliance would be the loss of federal highway funding.
On March 27, District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas ruled that the FHWA does not have the authority to order states and MPOs to keep the required records and set them aside.
In the 49-page judgement, Hendrix wrote, “If the people, through Congress, believe that the states should spend the time and money necessary to measure and report GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and set declining emission targets, they may do so by amending Section 150 or passing a new law. But an agency cannot make this decision for the people.”
Hendrix was appointed in 2019 by President Donald Trump. Section 150 is the portion of the Federal Register that deals with the authority granted to federal agencies and their limitations.
The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Kentucky’s Paducah Division issued its own ruling on April 1, providing a summary judgement.
In the 26-page ruling, District Judge Benjamin Beaton, a 2020 appointee under Trump, wrote, “The Court declares that the Final Rule exceeds the Federal Highway Administration’s statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”
A total of 22 states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined in the Kentucky lawsuit, and the court ruling vacates the FHWA ruling in each one.
Filing in court is just one way opponents of the FHWA ruling fought to get it reversed.
A joint resolution was entered into both the US House of Representatives and the Senate shortly after the FHWA ruling by 48 senators and representatives. It was quickly sent to committee for further discussion, with argument for and against largely dependent on party affiliation.
In the resolution, the listing of co-sponsors required more space than the resolution itself, which simply stated, “That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to ‘National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure’ (88 Fed. Reg. 85364 (December 7, 2023), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”
Reps Sam Graves, R-Mo., House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman, and Rick Crawford, R-Ark., chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, issued a joint statement following the Texas ruling that said, “This was a clear case of blatant overreach by the Biden Administration from the beginning, and we commend the Court for its ruling that a ‘federal administrative agency cannot act without congressional authorization,’”
The representatives explained that the GHG performance measure was included in Biden’s Infrastructure Bill and was rejected by Congress, only to reappear as a FHWA ruling. They called the FHWA ruling “an unlawful attempt to circumvent Congress.”
While the FHWA proposal was still seeking comments before the final ruling, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., who is ranking member of the Senate Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in a statement that “The committee specifically debated whether to grant (the Department of Transportation) this authority, and the Committee’s unanimously-passed bill chose not to include this poison pill.”
In the wake of the Kentucky ruling, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, one of the 21 attorneys general to file the action, issued a statement that said, “The Federal Highway Administration should be helping states maintain and update our highways, not pushing President Biden’s climate activism. Unfortunately, it took a multistate lawsuit and a federal court order to remind them of that.”
The now-defunct FHWA ruling was a part of the Biden administrations goal of reducing carbon emissions by 2030.
The FHWA will review the court decisions and determine next steps.
For the trucking industry, the court rulings won’t make much of a difference, as the goals for adoption of electric vehicles and mandates for reduced emissions from diesel engines have not changed.
Some states and MPOs will undoubtedly put emissions measurement and other requirements in place, but those that are enacted will be approved and enforced locally and not under mandate from the federal government.
Cliff Abbott is an experienced commercial vehicle driver and owner-operator who still holds a CDL in his home state of Alabama. In nearly 40 years in trucking, he’s been an instructor and trainer and has managed safety and recruiting operations for several carriers. Having never lost his love of the road, Cliff has written a book and hundreds of songs and has been writing for The Trucker for more than a decade.
With the EV mandate still in place, does it really matter what the courts say?
Another example of Republicans shopping the courts to get their way and ir seems that it IS ALWAYS trump appointees in Texas. This is not a ruling on the law but a political ruling in favor of Republicans and only Republicans
Another example of Republicans shopping the courts to get their way and it seems that it IS ALWAYS trump appointees in Texas. This is not a ruling on the law but a political ruling in favor of Republicans and only Republicans
Yet another example of extreme leftist Democrats “judge shopping” to get their way and it is ALWAYS Obama or Clinton appointees in New England or some other blue state. This is a ruling on the law for THE PEOPLE because it is yet another example of leftist government bureaucrats trying to circumvent the law and Congress in yet another power grab to allow themselves the authority to force their ideological beliefs on everyone else.