Association of American Railroads v. Randolph

On April 17, 2025, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California approved a request by the parties to a lawsuit challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) In-Use Locomotive Regulation to hold the case in abeyance. Prior to Inauguration Day, CARB withdrew its request to EPA for a Clean Air Act preemption waiver for the Regulation. The parties to the case challenging the Regulation subsequently agreed that CARB would propose to repeal the Regulation in full and that the railroad industry groups challenging the rule would voluntarily dismiss their complaint if the repeal was approved by May 30, 2026. The industry groups, environmental groups that intervened to defend the rule, and CARB also agreed “to hold a series of working groups to discuss potential ways to reduce emissions from rail activities, on a voluntary basis, in the State of California.”

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California stayed an action challenging California’s In-Use Locomotive Regulation, which sets emissions standards for locomotives operating in California. The court concluded that the primary jurisdiction doctrine required the court to stay consideration of claims that the regulation was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act or violated the dormant Commerce Clause pending the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s review of the regulation to determine which portions require EPA authorization and whether to authorize those portions for which EPA authorization would be required. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge certain aspects of the regulation that concerned idling requirements.

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part California officials’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) “In-Use Locomotive Regulation,” which included four primary components: (1) Spending Account requiring annual deposits for use only for certain categories of projects related to clean locomotives; (2) In-Use Operational Requirements restricting use of older locomotives starting in 2030; (3) Idling Requirements regulating function and maintenance of locomotives; and (4) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for annual reports of emissions information for non-zero emissions locomotives. In addition, the regulation’s Administrative Payment Provision requires an annual payment to CARB of $175 per locomotive that operates in the state. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims challenging the Spending Account and In-Use Operational requirements were not ripe, including a dormant Commerce Clause claim and claims that those requirements were preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) and Clean Air Act. The court found that the plaintiffs could not show that enforcement of these requirements was “sufficiently concrete or imminent” because California could not enforce them absent approval by EPA under Clean Air Act Section 209(e)(2), which is interpreted to bar California from regulating new locomotives. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege an economic injury for their Locomotive Inspection Act preemption challenge to the Idling Requirements because they did not allege how the purportedly preempted provision would impose news costs on the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs did have standing for their ICCTA and dormant Commerce Clause challenges to the Idling Requirements. The court dismissed facial ICCTA preemption and dormant Commerce Clause challenges to the Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements but allowed as-applied challenges to proceed. The court also found that the plaintiffs stated a dormant Commerce Clause claim challenging the Administrative Payment Provision.

Two associations representing freight and passenger railroads filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California challenging the “In-Use Locomotive Regulation” adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on April 27, 2023. The associations asserted that the regulation was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, as well as the Clean Air Act and Locomotive Inspection Act. They also asserted that the regulation violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The complaint alleged that freight rail, “[d]espite its significance to the U.S. economy, … accounts for just 1.7% of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions” and that “railroads have continued to explore and invest in emissions-reducing initiatives.” The associations contended that the CARB regulation’s “dictates are unworkable and counterproductive” because the mandates were “premised on unrealistic technology forecasts” regarding when zero-emissions technology would be available. The complaint alleged that the regulations would “disrupt railroads’ existing investments in safety and the environment and because the compliance burdens imposed make the industry less competitive in relation to other forms of freight and passenger transportation that produce far greater levels of criteria, toxic, and climate pollutants, such as trucks.”