In Kentucky, a federal judge ruled against a Biden administration regulation that mandated states to set climate benchmarks for vehicles on the national highway system, labeling it as unauthorized.
However, he refrained from annulling it, amidst concerns over litigation practices aimed at preemptively blocking government policies across the nation.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Beaton, appointed by former President Donald Trump, concurred with 21 Republican-led states that the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) regulation, enacted in December, lacked legal foundation and was thus invalid.
This rule required states to monitor and report vehicle greenhouse gas emissions on national highways, set decreasing carbon dioxide goals, and document their progress toward these objectives.
The FHWA based this regulation on a statute granting it the power to develop measures for evaluating the national highway system’s performance.
However, Beaton contended that this did not permit the FHWA to impose national greenhouse-gas policies on state transportation departments, arguing it disrupted the federal-state sovereignty balance fundamental to U.S. federalism.
Despite these findings, Beaton did not suspend the rule’s enforcement or nullify it entirely.
He noted that a similar case in Texas, presided over by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, another Trump appointee, resulted in the rule’s nationwide annulment.
Beaton highlighted Hendrix’s action as a reflection of the broader issue with universal legal remedies, suggesting that the practice of vacating rules—effectively undoing them—was a more severe response than issuing nationwide injunctions against their enforcement.
He stressed the need for judicial prudence in granting relief that accurately addresses the litigants’ grievances without overstepping.
Opting for a more measured approach, Beaton issued a declaratory judgment deeming the regulation arbitrary and gave the involved parties 21 days to propose further specific remedies.
Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, leading the opposition, hailed the decision as a triumph against what he perceives as the Biden administration’s extreme environmental policies.
The FHWA had yet to comment on the ruling at the time of reporting.
The case marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue around the scope of federal regulations and the judicial system’s role in mediating between national policies and state sovereignty.