A federal appeals court addressed whether industry groups could intervene in a lawsuit over Congress…
State of California v. USA
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A federal appeals court addressed whether industry groups could intervene in a lawsuit over Congress canceling EPA waivers that let California set its own vehicle emissions rules.
Why it matters
This case involves a lawsuit by California and 11 other states challenging congressional resolutions that canceled EPA waivers allowing California to enforce its own zero-emission vehicle regulations. Several industry groups, including trucking associations, automotive innovators, and fuel manufacturers, sought to join the lawsuit as defendants. The Ninth Circuit was reviewing the district court's decisions on those requests to intervene.
Who it affects
- The federal government
- Automakers
- Auto dealers
- Corn growers
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
California had adopted three regulations designed to encourage the production and sale of zero-emission vehicles. Because federal law generally preempts state vehicle emissions rules, California needed waivers from the EPA, which it received under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. Congress then passed resolutions under the Congressional Review Act to cancel those waivers, and the President signed the resolutions into law. California, joined by 11 other states, sued the federal government arguing the resolutions were unconstitutional. A number of outside parties, including the Western States Trucking Association, the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the National Automobile Dealers Association, various corn growers associations, and fuel and petrochemical industry groups, sought to join the lawsuit on the side of the federal defendants. The district court denied their motions to intervene as of right. The Ninth Circuit was hearing appeals from those denials. The source text describes the background of the dispute and the parties involved, and establishes that the appellate court, composed of Chief Judge Murguia and Judges Koh and H.A. Thomas, heard argument on June 25, 2026. The text does not include the court's ultimate holdings or reasoning on the intervention questions, so those outcomes cannot be described here. What is clear from the record is that this case has broad implications for California's ability to set its own vehicle emissions standards, the scope of Congress's authority to use the Congressional Review Act to cancel EPA waivers, and the rights of industry stakeholders to participate in high-stakes environmental litigation.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 25-8013 COLORADO; STATE OF DELAWARE; D.C. No. STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, named as 4:25-cv-04966-HSG Commonwealth of Massachusetts; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NEW YORK; MEMORANDUM* STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP; LEE ZELDIN; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees, WESTERN STATES TRUCKING ASSOCIATION; CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AIR QUALITY COALITION, INC., Intervenor-Defendants - Appellants, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. and AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ILLINOIS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, INDIANA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, IOWA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, KANSAS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, KENTUCKY CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MISSOURI CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NEBRASKA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, TENNESSEE CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS CORN PRODUCERS, WISCONSIN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, STATE OF TEXAS, ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER'S ASSOCIATION, Intervenor-Defendants, and AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES, Intervenors. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 26-88 COLORADO; STATE OF DELAWARE; 2 25-8013 STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE D.C. No. OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW 4:25-cv-04966-HSG MEXICO; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LEE ZELDIN, DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants, AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; ILLINOIS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; INDIANA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; IOWA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; KANSAS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; KENTUCKY CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; MICHIGAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; MISSOURI CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NEBRASKA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; TENNESSEE CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; TEXAS CORN PRODUCERS; WISCONSIN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL CORN GROWERS 3 25-8013 ASSOCIATION, Intervenor-Defendants - Appellants, and STATE OF TEXAS, ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER'S ASSOCIATION, WESTERN STATES TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AIR QUALITY COALITION, INC., AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Intervenor-Defendants. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 26-497 COLORADO; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE D.C. No. OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW 4:25-cv-04966-HSG MEXICO; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LEE ZELDIN, DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants, 4 25-8013 AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ILLINOIS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, INDIANA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, IOWA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, KANSAS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, KENTUCKY CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MISSOURI CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NEBRASKA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, TENNESSEE CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS CORN PRODUCERS, WISCONSIN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, STATE OF TEXAS, ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER'S ASSOCIATION, WESTERN STATES TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AIR QUALITY COALITION, INC., Intervenor-Defendants, and AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES, Intervenor-Defendants - Appellants. 5 25-8013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 26-525 COLORADO; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE D.C. No. OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW 4:25-cv-04966-HSG MEXICO; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LEE ZELDIN, DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants, ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION; NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER'S ASSOCIATION, Intervenor-Defendants - Appellants, and AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ILLINOIS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, INDIANA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, IOWA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, KANSAS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, KENTUCKY CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN CORN 6 25-8013 GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MISSOURI CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NEBRASKA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, TENNESSEE CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS CORN PRODUCERS, WISCONSIN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, STATE OF TEXAS, WESTERN STATES TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AIR QUALITY COALITION, INC., AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES, Intervenor-Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 25, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KOH and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. California promulgated three regulations relating to new motor vehicle emissions that encouraged the increased production and sales of zero emission vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) granted California waivers that exempted these regulations from federal preemption under section 209 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Congress passed resolutions (“Resolutions”) disapproving the EPA waivers through the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”), 7 25-8013 and the President signed the Resolutions into law. California, 11 states and the District of Columbia (“Plaintiff States”), sued the United States, the EPA, Donald Trump, and Lee Zeldin (collectively, “Federal Defendants”) seeking to have the Resolutions declared unconstitutional. Western States Trucking Association (“WSTA”) and Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Inc. (“CIAQC”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to intervene in Plaintiff States’ suit as of right but do not appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for permissive intervention. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (“Auto Innovators”), National Automobile Dealers Association (“NADA”), the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (“AmFree”), the American Fuel & Petrochemical
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.