# Trump administration plan to revoke/overule California's emission standards - constitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2019, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414 "2019-09-18T02:21:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/21 "2019-09-19T14:22:32Z")
The part I don’t get is that as I understood our Federal system all along is that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution means that State regulations on things can be more restrictive than the Federal ones, as the state law already meets the Federal standard. For example, if the Federal standard was less than 100 ppb of gasoline in drinking water, then a State standard of less than 150 ppb would be moot. But there’s nothing stopping a state from saying “The State standard is less than 80 ppb of gasoline”. In this case, it works because any water meeting the State standard also meets the Federal one. We see this all the time- gun laws are a good example where states are often more restrictive than the Federal government. How would this NOT be the same thing? Is the Clean Air Act written in some kind of weird way that would imply a state can’t impose stricter emissions controls, thereby requiring a waiver? ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/22 "2019-09-19T14:48:49Z")
Are car manufacturers really going to rush to make more “lax standard” compliant vehicles? Aren’t they too busy trying to figure out how to get in on the electric vehicle wave. And they’ve already spent all that money tooling up to make cars meeting California standards. Why would they spend money retooling again? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/23 "2019-09-19T14:52:40Z")
> [@bump](#): > > The part I don’t get is that as I understood our Federal system all along is that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution means that State regulations on things can be more restrictive than the Federal ones, as the state law already meets the Federal standard. > > For example, if the Federal standard was less than 100 ppb of gasoline in drinking water, then a State standard of less than 150 ppb would be moot. But there’s nothing stopping a state from saying “The State standard is less than 80 ppb of gasoline”. In this case, it works because any water meeting the State standard also meets the Federal one. > > We see this all the time- gun laws are a good example where states are often more restrictive than the Federal government. > > How would this NOT be the same thing? Is the Clean Air Act written in some kind of weird way that would imply a state can’t impose stricter emissions controls, thereby requiring a waiver? The water example does not fit as you wouldn’t bring your tap water with you as you move from one state to the next. It could be an issue with bottled water if a state blocked import of water meeting federal standards. Someone could sue in a case like that. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/24 "2019-09-19T15:00:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > . It’s not like the federal standards are going to set some minimum amount of pollution that vehicles are required to produce. Give them time… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/25 "2019-09-19T15:14:57Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > 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. Well, interstate commerce in marijuana is illegal at the Federal level in any case. Interstate commerce in automobiles isn’t. > [@bump](#): > > For example, if the Federal standard was less than 100 ppb of gasoline in drinking water, then a State standard of less than 150 ppb would be moot. But there’s nothing stopping a state from saying “The State standard is less than 80 ppb of gasoline”. In this case, it works because any water meeting the State standard also meets the Federal one. > > We see this all the time- gun laws are a good example where states are often more restrictive than the Federal government. > > How would this NOT be the same thing? Is the Clean Air Act written in some kind of weird way that would imply a state can’t impose stricter emissions controls, thereby requiring a waiver? Different laws are written different ways. As you state, in some areas the Federal Government sets out a minimum standard for things, but the law allows the states to exceed that minimum. You point out a few examples, and minimum wage laws are another major example. But in other areas, the Federal Government looks at an issue and for whatever reasons, sees that enacting minimums that the states are free to exceed would just result in a total mess. One example in this area is the regulation of aircraft: the FAA defines the way our airways and aircraft work, and states don’t get to tinker with that. And in that case it makes sense: if California required airplanes to use renewable fuels from algae due to environmental concerns, but Iowa required the use of ethanol because farmers and Texas required the use of West intermediate crude because Houston, then things quickly get to be a mess. So for auto emission standards, there’s sort of a hybrid setup. Feds get the final say… but… at the Feds discretion, California could be stricter. And if the Feds don’t want to allow the waiver, California unfortunately doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s literally why the waiver was created in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/26 "2019-09-19T16:03:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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.) (Emphasis added.) It’s more complicated than that. The Clean Air Act provides that California shall receive a waiver unless the EPA makes certain determinations. > [@42 U.S. Code § 7543(b)(1)](#): > > The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that— > (A)the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious, > (B)such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or > (C)such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title. As **Fotheringay-Phipps** linked, the EPA already gave that waiver. In other words, the EPA already declared that those three conditions that would bar a waiver are not so. As I understand it, the argument that the EPA can’t revoke the waiver is not constitutional but statutory: the statute does not provide for revocation or withdrawal of an already-issued waiver, it has no provision for the EPA to essentially un-find what it already found. This isn’t a brlef from the California AG, but it looks like someone has thought through the argument against revocation. [“No Turning Back” pdf.](https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/No_Turning_Back.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/27 "2019-09-19T16:10:36Z")
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA _must_ grant the waiver unless it violates certain narrow restrictions. From the California Air Resources Board [website](https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mainpage.htm): "Under CAA Section 209 U.S. EPA must grant California a waiver unless the Administrator finds that: � California was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards; � California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or � such standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with Section202(a) of the Clean Air Act." The Trump administration will likely claim that one of theses provisions was violated, and that will likely end up in court, but I believe it’s the White House that doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Administration will have to have that section of the CAA declared unconstitutional, or get Congress to revoke California’s waiver privilege. -------- On preview, ninja’d by **John Bredin**. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/28 "2019-09-19T16:11:09Z")
Thanks for the very interesting points! But the general point I was trying to make wasn’t about the waiver itself, but that states are inherently holding the short end of the stick when the Federal government as a whole (not the EPA specifically) chooses to flex its muscles. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414/29 "2019-09-19T18:28:08Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > 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_? The question about federalism (which is preempted by the statutory issue in this case) might be addressed with a _Baldwin_ test. Basically, both federal and state governments claim concurrent powers to regulate some aspect of commerce. Assuming the federal government’s regulation is valid and the state wants to go above and beyond, the _Baldwin_ test asks the state to identify its interests and then determines whether a less discriminatory approach could satisfy that interest. If a less discriminatory approach is available, the state law gets struck down. But I am not a lawyer and may very well be wrong. That case would be _Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig_ (1935). See also _Dean Milk Co. v. Madison_ (1951) and _Maine v. Taylor_ (1986) for relevant applications of the _Baldwin_ test. ~Max Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511 (1935) Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-administration-plan-to-revoke-overule-californias-emission-standards-constitutional/840414.md?page=1)