Ninth Circuit questions auto groups’ right to intervene in emissions waiver dispute

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A Ninth Circuit panel of judges questioned automotive industry groups Thursday on their appeal to intervene in a lawsuit brought by California and other states that allow stronger emission standards than the federal Clean Air Act standards and claims Congress improperly adopted new federal resolutions that “disapproved” of the waivers.

Twenty movants related to the automotive industry, including corn grower associations that make vehicle fuel, auto manufacturers and dealers, gas station owners and other national trade groups claimed their interests were aligned with the federal government’s, but they also have specific economic interests and should be added as parties to the lawsuit, arguing for intervention or a remand to a lower court to reconsider particular intervenors.

Appellant attorney Michael Buschbacher, representing the joint intervenors, said if California were to win its lawsuit and apply its emissions standards, it would impair the groups’ ability to do business.

He argued the groups have separate but important interests outside the federal government’s position.

“The federal government doesn’t adequately represent our interests,” he told the three-judge panel. “It regulates our interests, and the government is also not making the arguments that we think they should be making at a motion to dismiss phase.”

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2025, California and other states claim that by employing the Congressional Review Act — through which legislators can overturn federal agency regulations via a joint resolution of disapproval and passed with a simple majority — and using expedited procedures as the vehicle to stop California and the other plaintiff states from requiring stricter emission standards, it “ran roughshod over federalism and separation of powers principles.”

Starting in 1967, the Clean Air Act waiver provision through the Environmental Protection Agency has granted California more than 75 preemption waivers for updates to the state’s new motor vehicle emissions control program. According to the state plaintiffs in the lawsuit, “these waivers have allowed California to improve on its already excellent program, to foster technological advancements, and to protect Californians from harmful pollution.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Lucy Koh, a Joe Biden appointee, was quick to question the legitimacy of all the intervenors and wondered where a line should be drawn for the groups that have enough cause to intervene.

“Why aren’t the fuel producers too far removed?” she asked Buschbacher. “Because there’s a lot of steps to actually get to finding that they’re actually impacted.”

Buschbacher disagreed, saying, “You can’t drive a car off the lot unless there’s some fuel in it.”

Buschbacher also disagreed with the lower court’s decision that didn’t allow any intervenor in the lawsuit. He argued the auto industry groups have an “intervention of right” claim under a federal rule of civil procedure because they have a direct financial stake in the outcome of the case.

California Deputy Attorney General Cecilia Segal said the dispute “at its core” is between the federal government and 11 plaintiff states “over the United States’ unprecedented attempt to use the Congressional Review Act to nullify state laws.”

She said the groups seeking to intervene “haven’t established a protectable interest that is related to those issues, or that would be impeded by their resolution."

Furthermore, she said, there needs to be a limit to who could potentially seek to intervene, if for nothing else, she said, than for judicial economy and preventing the case from becoming overly complicated.

“They haven’t been able to draw that line if you equate it to a cause of action,” she said.

Segal partially conceded that carmakers and dealers may have a direct financial stake in the case and “it would be appropriate to remand to the district court to consider where that line might be.”

However, she argued the auto industry groups failed to show how the federal government was inadequately representing their interests. She called the government’s decision not to bring up a specific argument about “waivers as rules” the intervenors would like to make a “litigation choice” that didn’t mean the federal government would abandon or concede the argument; it just hadn’t made it before the intervenors decided to appeal.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Murguia, a Barack Obama appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Holly Thomas, a Biden appointee, rounded out the panel.