On Wednesday, a U.S. District Court delivered a significant setback to the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, striking down a controversial rule aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s highways.
“The rule was unauthorized,” stated U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, appointed by former President Trump.
“A federal administrative agency cannot act without congressional authorization,” Hendrix wrote in his ruling.
The contested rule, introduced by the Department of Transportation (DOT)’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in December 2023, sought to compel states to actively measure, report, and establish declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions generated by vehicles on U.S. highways. However, the state of Texas, challenging the federal mandate, argued that the FHWA had overstepped its authority with the imposition of the new rule.
In his analysis, Judge Hendrix aligned with Texas, asserting that the DOT’s expansive interpretation of its regulatory powers was unsupported by the statute’s text.
“The relevant definitions and related performance measures make clear that ‘performance of the Interstate/National Highway Systems’ focuses on the infrastructure’s effectiveness in facilitating travel, commerce, and national defense—not environmental outputs of vehicles using the systems,” Hendrix elaborated.
The Biden administration defended the rule as a crucial step towards mitigating climate change and promoting sustainable transportation infrastructure. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg stated in December that the “new performance measure will provide states with a clear and consistent framework to track carbon pollution and the flexibility to set their own climate targets.”
However, Texas, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton, vehemently opposed the initiative, declaring the state’s intention to halt “unlawful climate mandates.” A coalition of 21 states also filed a lawsuit in Kentucky to contest the regulation, a case that remains unresolved.
The decision by Judge Hendrix represents a significant blow to the Biden administration’s broader climate policy ambitions, signaling judicial resistance to expansive interpretations of regulatory authority without clear legislative backing. The ruling not only halts the implementation of the greenhouse gas reporting rule but also raises concerns about the scope of federal agencies’ power to enact climate-related regulations.
"*" indicates required fields
