Biden Admin Faces Lawsuit for State Emissions Standards Rule

States ‍Challenge Biden Administration’s ‌Emission Standards Rule

Twenty-one ⁣states, led by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, are taking a stand against a new rule from the Biden administration. This rule would require states⁤ to create emission standards and report their⁤ progress to the​ federal government.

The rule, issued ‍by ⁣the Department of Transportation ⁢and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), would mandate that state departments of‍ transportation establish goals to reduce CO2 emissions. However, Republican attorneys general argue that this rule ⁤is unconstitutional and would‍ disproportionately harm rural areas⁢ where driving is essential.

“Unconstitutional‌ Ramming of Radical Climate Agenda”

“President Biden is unconstitutionally ramming his radical climate agenda⁣ through administrative agencies that ‍lack Congressional authority ⁤to implement such actions,” Cameron said. “We will not‌ stand by while this administration attempts to circumvent the legislative process.”

The rule, set to go into effect on January 8, requires state departments of ⁣transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to establish declining carbon dioxide (CO2) targets and report on their progress. It does not specify how low these targets must be.

The FHWA will also ⁣be empowered to assess whether⁣ state‌ departments of transportation have made significant ‌progress toward achieving their targets.

A joint complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky by Cameron and the⁣ attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, ‌Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, ‌Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,⁤ South Dakota, South Carolina, Utah,‌ Virginia, West⁤ Virginia, and Wyoming.

Challenging Unconstitutional Regulation

“Congress has not given FHWA⁢ or DOT authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” the complaint states. “Nor can ‌the Agencies ‍compel the States to administer a federal regulatory ​program or mandate them to further Executive policy wishes absent some other authority to do so — which is lacking as to this rule.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

The complaint challenges President Joe Biden, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the FHWA, and FHWA ⁣Administrator Shailen Bhatt.‍ It argues that the rule is unconstitutional and ⁤violates the principles of federalism.

Montana‌ Attorney General Austin Knudsen criticized the rule‌ as⁢ another aspect of the Biden administration’s attempt to implement a “radical green agenda.”

Unlawful ⁤and Overreaching Regulation

“This rule is⁣ another unlawful and overreaching regulation by the Biden Administration to force the President’s radical green agenda onto Americans regardless of the costs,” Knudsen said. “This one-size-fits-all⁢ approach might work for the Washington, DC bureaucrats who cooked it up, but it⁤ won’t work for Montana.”

What concerns do Republican‌ attorneys⁤ general ​have regarding the federal government’s power to withhold funding‌ for transportation‍ projects if⁢ a state fails to meet ‍its targets under the PAA?

If a ‌state fails⁤ to meet its targets, the FHWA may withhold federal funding for transportation projects. This ​aspect of the‌ rule has caused concern among Republican attorneys general, who argue that it⁤ gives the federal government too⁣ much power and could lead to⁢ punishment for states that ⁤don’t comply ⁢with the administration’s climate agenda.

The states challenging the rule argue that it ‍violates ⁤the Constitution’s separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to make policy‌ decisions without Congressional approval. ​They also argue that the rule infringes on states’ ⁣rights by forcing them ⁤to comply with federal regulations and goals, rather than allowing them to set their own standards based ⁣on their unique circumstances.

In addition, the attorneys general argue that‌ the rule would disproportionately harm rural areas, where driving is often necessary for daily life. They contend that the CO2⁣ reduction targets may be unrealistic ⁢for rural areas with limited public transportation ​options and long driving distances.

Kentucky Attorney‍ General Daniel Cameron, who is leading the coalition of states challenging the‌ rule, stated that they will not stand by while the⁣ Biden administration attempts to circumvent the legislative process and impose their climate agenda through⁤ administrative agencies. Cameron ​called the rule an “unconstitutional⁤ ramming of a radical⁢ climate‌ agenda” and emphasized the importance⁢ of protecting states’ rights and preserving the balance of power between⁤ the ⁣federal government⁢ and the ⁣states.

While the Biden administration has argued ⁢that the rule is⁢ necessary to address climate change and reduce greenhouse ‌gas emissions, the ‍Republican attorneys general maintain⁤ that‌ the decision to establish emission standards should‍ be made by elected representatives in Congress, rather than⁣ by unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies.

The outcome of this⁢ legal⁢ challenge could have significant implications for the Biden administration’s climate agenda and the​ balance of power ​between the federal government ​and the states. If the rule is ultimately struck down as unconstitutional, it could limit the administration’s ability to⁤ enact‍ its climate⁢ policies ​through executive action and instead require legislative action ⁤from⁢ Congress.

As the‌ legal‍ battle unfolds, it highlights the ‍broader debate over the ​appropriate role of the federal government in addressing climate change‌ and ⁣the extent to ‍which it should involve ‍the ‌states ‍in setting emission standards. It also⁣ raises questions about the balance ‌between protecting the ⁣environment and considering the potential economic impacts on rural areas and other affected communities.

Ultimately, the resolution of⁢ this challenge ‌will⁤ have ⁣implications not only⁣ for the specific emission standards rule in question but ​also for the ⁣broader relationship between the federal government and the⁢ states in shaping environmental policies.