This is not about the desirability (or morality) of Trump’s plan. I am curious to know how such a thing can be constitutional.
I am not an American so may have this wrong, but don’t the states frequently establish their own standards and regulations? Obvious examples include gun legislation, gambling, cannabis, even abortion. On what grounds could SCOTUS say that emission standards - emission standards in one state - are the strict purview of the Federal Government?
I understand that the Feds can penalize a state for not upholding certain federally-defined standards. But can the Federal Government make a credible case against a state for upholding federal standards too well?
Will they invoke the interstate commerce clause? But anything California does will affect interstate commerce only indirectly (by other states either feeling compelled to use the California standards or actually preferring them). That seems like a stretch to me, based as it would be on some presumption of what might happen not what will happen, and certainly not a direct result of what California legislates.
That’s pretty much how most of the New Deal legislation – and, later, civil rights legislation – was judged constitutional. Almost everything has some effect on interstate commerce.
Typical Trump pouting. Certain auto manufacturers refused to relax their standards, so Trump went after them. Now he’s trying to force California to do the same. Just stupid. I said that out loud, even though it goes without saying.
The way I understood it, the law provides that the Federal government can set the fuel economy and emissions standards, but that EPA can issue a waiver to California to allow it to set its own. So if the Trump Administration doesn’t want to allow for the waiver, well, its dumb policy but certainly not unconstitutional. (At least as far as I understand it.)
So, at the end of the day, a state can’t set its own, more stringent standards. Fine.
But I assume that nothing would prevent it from, say, taxing manufacturers of certain vehicles (and only certain vehicles), or from compelling certain automakers to install expensive additional on-board emission monitors, you know, just to be certain the standards are being maintained in the real world.
IOW, if I can rephrase my OP, other than further inflaming and dividing people, will the Administration’s plan actually change anything?
To the extent that California seeks to overturn lawful Federal rulemaking on emissions standards, which is pretty clearly a matter of interstate commerce, such actions are on pretty shaky ground. For example, in the 1990s, California had a special registration fee on vehicles that were bought out of state and then registered in California. I want to say it was about $500 or so, and it was imposed to discourage people from going to buy cars in other states that didn’t have emissions control equipment that was required in California. I had to pay that fee because I moved from another state back to California for a while.
Sometime in the early 2000s or so, I got a check out of the blue for a refund of those fees. Someone had sued and won stating that California’s registration fees for such vehicles was an illegal infringement of interstate commerce, and clearly they won.
OK, so California adopts the Federal Emission standards. However, as I understand it, the inspection process is under state control. So any car that meets stricter California standards gets a pass and a two-year sticker. But if you’re closer to the federal limit, it’s more risky that something might go out of adjustment, so if you don’t pass the California standards (but do pass the Federal), you pass but get a one-month sticker.
I’d think that would be legal and would pretty quickly make the sale or importation of cars that don’t pass the stricter standards pretty limited in California.
Why on earth would it be legal? California couldn’t charge an extra fee for out of state cars - why could they get away with requiring 12 inspections per year of out of cars?
Never mind legal. Is this something California voters will accept? This strikes me as something that would piss off a lot of constituents. Even the Trump hating ones.
Of course California has to comply with the federal standards. But stricter California standards would still comply with the federal standards. It’s not like the federal standards are going to set some minimum amount of pollution that vehicles are required to produce.
They’re not charging an extra fee for out of state cars or requiring extra inspections for out-of-state cars, they’re saying you need to be inspected more often if you are too close to the Federal standards. There are out-of state cars which would meet the higher standards and as it wouldn’t be illegal to sell cars that met the Federal standards in California so there would be California cars that that required more frequent inspections.
The interplay of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the judicature regarding federal pre-emption are not simple matters. First-year law students read a series of cases on things like short-coupled freight trains and curved truck mudflaps.
But basically, states may have their own health and safety regulations unless those would impermissibly burden interstate commerce, as for instance, if it would keep you from being able to drive the same vehicle from one state to another. And when Congress has undertaken to regulate a particular area of interstate commerce, that regulation preempts any state efforts to regulate the same aspect.
As I understand it, the Clean Air Act would ordinarily preempt any state regs on the same subject. But one of the compromises made to get it passed was to allow this waiver for California’s preexisting stricter laws.
This scheme is even more burdensome than the out-of-state registration fee I had to pay, and courts ruled that fee an unconstitutional interference in interstate commerce.
If the Feds make a standard that “this” is an acceptable level of pollution, and under the Clean Air Act the Feds don’t give a waiver to California to tinker with that standard, then the Federal standard is the standard and states can’t tinker with it. Welcome to Federalism. It doesn’t always result in my preferred policy.
So basically, as Chronos expressed better than me, the Feds can mandate some minimum degree of pollution? Wow.
In any case, I don’t understand why it’s okay for a state where cannabis is illegal to bar the importation of cannabis from another state where it’s legal, but not for a state to bar the importation of certain vehicles from another state if those vehicles are illegal in the former and not in the latter.