Attorney General Letitia James takes legal action against the Trump administration over unlawful removal of New York’s clean vehicle standards

New York – In a move that marks yet another battle between state and federal environmental policy, New York Attorney General Letitia James, along with 10 other state attorneys general, has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s controversial attempt to revoke key clean air protections.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, pushes back against the federal government’s decision to dismantle three waivers previously granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. These waivers allowed California—and states like New York that follow its standards—to enforce stricter vehicle emission regulations than those required at the federal level.

The legal challenge targets the administration’s use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as a tool to eliminate these waivers. According to the coalition of states, the CRA, which allows Congress to overturn certain federal agency rules, was never intended to be used in this way. Waivers, they argue, are not “rules” in the legal sense but rather judgments that permit states to take independent environmental action.

Read also: Businesses across the nine-county region are invited to apply for the Greater Rochester Chamber’s 2025 Top 100 Awards and celebrate their growth

“Every New Yorker deserves to breathe clean air and live in a healthy environment,” said Attorney General James. “This administration is using a sneaky backdoor to gut clean air standards that have been in place for decades, threatening our ability to fight pollution, protect families from toxic emissions, and build a safer future. We are suing to keep our communities healthy and defend our state’s lifesaving clean air protections.”

At the heart of the issue are three critical waivers granted in recent years: the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, the Advanced Clean Trucks program, and the Omnibus emissions standards. These waivers are essential tools in New York’s battle to combat air pollution and reduce its contribution to climate change.

The Advanced Clean Cars II rule compels automakers to steadily increase sales of zero-emission vehicles. The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation targets medium- and heavy-duty trucks, encouraging their transition to electric and low-emission technologies. Meanwhile, the Omnibus regulation enforces stringent nitrogen oxide (NOx) limits for heavy-duty trucks—a key step in addressing smog and improving air quality in urban areas.

These programs, although created in California, were adopted by New York under provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow other states to opt into California’s stricter standards. Since the 1960s, California has held a unique position under federal law, granted the authority to set its own emission rules because it had established air pollution regulations even before the federal government did. Over the decades, the EPA has approved more than 75 waivers to California, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

What makes this case particularly unprecedented is the Trump administration’s decision to reclassify these longstanding waivers as “rules” subject to CRA disapproval. Historically, both the EPA and legal experts in Congress have maintained that waivers are not subject to CRA procedures. This consensus was upended when the administration sent the three waivers to Congress last month, seeking to nullify them through legislative disapproval.

Despite concerns raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian—both of which stated that such waivers are not covered by the CRA—Congress pushed forward. In an unusual move, it voted to disapprove the waivers. President Trump subsequently signed those resolutions into law, thereby stripping away the regulatory authority these states had relied on.

Read also: Governor Kathy Hochul delivers strong defense of New York’s immigration policies during testimony before House Oversight Committee

In their legal filing, Attorney General James and her counterparts argue that this maneuver violates multiple federal statutes, especially the Clean Air Act. They maintain that revoking the waivers not only disrupts years of environmental progress but also encroaches on states’ rights to implement more aggressive climate policies.

The lawsuit also raises broader concerns about how the CRA is being applied. Designed in the 1990s as a mechanism for Congress to reject newly adopted agency regulations, the CRA had never before been used to overturn EPA waivers. The coalition contends that using the CRA in this way amounts to an abuse of power and sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to erode other state-level protections in the future.

Joining New York in the legal action are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—states that, like New York, have historically leaned on California’s more rigorous environmental standards to protect their residents from pollution and hold automakers to higher clean air expectations.

Environmental experts and advocacy groups have expressed alarm over the rollback. They say that removing the waivers not only undermines efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also threatens public health, especially in densely populated urban areas where traffic-related pollution is a major concern.

The case could have major implications for how environmental regulations are implemented in the U.S., particularly as more states seek to accelerate their transition to electric vehicles. The waivers in question support programs that play a key role in driving innovation in the automotive industry, encouraging manufacturers to develop and market cleaner vehicles.

Without these waivers, New York and other like-minded states may find it significantly harder to enforce higher emissions standards. This could slow down the adoption of electric vehicles and prolong the use of polluting engines on the road, further aggravating the climate crisis and putting communities at risk.

For now, the legal battle is just beginning, but Attorney General James has made clear that the stakes are high—not only for the state’s environmental policies but for the principle of states’ rights itself.

“Every New Yorker deserves to breathe clean air and live in a healthy environment,” she reiterated. “We are suing to keep our communities healthy and defend our state’s lifesaving clean air protections.”

As the lawsuit proceeds, eyes across the nation will be watching closely. The outcome could determine whether states like New York will be allowed to chart their own course on climate policy—or whether federal overreach will throttle local efforts to build a cleaner, safer future.