State of California v. USA

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS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;

3

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

4

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,

5

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.

6

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

7

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”),

8

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 Manufacturers (“AFPM”), the

American Petroleum Institute (“API”), the National Association of Convenience

Stores (“NACS”), and Corn Grower Associations appeal the district court’s denial

of their motions to intervene as of right and by permission.

“We review de novo the district court’s ruling on a motion of intervention as

of right.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2004).

“If the district court has abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention,

then appellate jurisdiction also exists to review the district court’s decision to deny

permissive intervention.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397

(9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part,

9

reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

1. We use a four-part test to determine whether to permit intervention as of

right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2):

(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a “significantly protectable” interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action.

Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)

(quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1481 (9th Cir. 1993)).1

a. Auto Innovators, NADA, and AmFree

Auto Innovators, NADA, and AmFree, as representatives of either

automakers or new motor vehicle dealers, have demonstrated each of the

requirements for intervention as of right. Section 209 grants automakers a “right to

sell federally approved vehicles.” Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality

Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 255 (2004). This interest is legally protectable, as

automakers can raise federal preemption of state regulations on new motor vehicles

as an affirmative defense. See, e.g., In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales

Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., 959 F.3d 1201, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2020). With the

1 The parties do not dispute that the motions to intervene as of right were timely.

10

EPA waivers in place, an automaker cannot successfully invoke section 209, as the

California regulations would no longer be preempted. With the Resolutions in

place, however, California’s regulations are preempted by section 209. If the

Plaintiff States’ claims succeed, Auto Innovators will be unable to invoke federal

preemption. Auto Innovators therefore has asserted, in the form of federal

preemption under section 209, a significantly protectable interest that may be

affected by the disposition of this case. See California ex rel. Lockyer v. United

States, 450 F.3d 436, 441–43 (9th Cir. 2006). NADA and AmFree, which represent

new motor vehicle dealers, have similar interests, as the section 209 preemption

clause applies until a new motor vehicle is sold “to an ultimate purchaser.” In re

Volkswagen, 959 F.3d at 1216 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7550(3)).

Auto Innovators, NADA, and AmFree have each, moreover, made a

“compelling showing” of inadequate representation by establishing that Federal

Defendants may not “undoubtedly make all of [their] arguments.” W. Watersheds

Project v. Haaland, 22 F.4th 828, 841 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Citizens for

Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Specifically, Auto Innovators, NADA, and AmFree argue that the EPA waivers are

rules under the CRA and the Administrative Procedure Act and are therefore

appropriate for consideration under the CRA, an argument which Federal

Defendants have not yet raised below.

11

b. WSTA, CIAQC, AFPM, API, NACS, and Corn Grower Associations

WSTA, CIAQC, AFPM, API, NACS, and Corn Grower Associations rely

on economic interests to support their claim for intervention as of right. These

interests, however, are “several degrees removed” from the “backbone of this

litigation.” Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d at 920. Before these proposed intervenors

might experience economic effects from this case, a chain of events would have to

occur, commencing with the district court finding the Resolutions unconstitutional

and continuing past the reinstatement of the EPA waivers. The attenuated chain of

causality this case presents is distinct from prior cases where we concluded there

were significantly protectable economic interests, as those cases involved more

immediate economic ramifications to the proposed intervenors. See Arakaki v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003); Californians For Safe &

Competitive Dump Truck Transportation v. Mendonca, 152 F.3d 1184, 1189–90

(9th Cir. 1998). We therefore affirm the district court’s denials of the motions to

intervene as of right filed by WSTA, CIAQC, AFPM, API, NACS, and Corn

Grower Associations.2

2 WSTA and CIAQC also argue that their involvement in litigation before the D.C. Circuit related to one of the regulations creates a significantly protectable interest under Rule 24(a)(2). WSTA and CIAQC fail to cite any legal authority to support this position; nor are we aware of any. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is [the appellant’s] burden on appeal to present the court with legal arguments to support its claims.”).

12

2. The district court abused its discretion in denying AFPM, API, NACS,

and the Corn Grower Associations’ motions for permissive intervention.3 The

district court stated that allowing intervention “would needlessly complicate case

management and compromise the efficiency of the litigation process since [the

proposed intervenors’] interests [were] already adequately represented by Federal

Defendants.” But, as discussed above, Federal Defendants do not adequately

represent these organizations’ interests as Federal Defendants may not advance all

of the arguments these organizations would rely on. Because the district court

relied on its incorrect analysis of the adequate representation issue in making its

permissive intervention decision, we remand for the district court to determine

whether AFPM, API, NACS, and Corn Grower Associations should be granted

permissive intervention. See Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C., 595

U.S. 267, 279 (2022) (“[A] court fails to exercise its discretion soundly when it

bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” (citation modified)).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further

proceedings.4

3 Again, WSTA and CIAQC did not appeal the district court’s decision denying their motion for permissive intervention.

4 The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.