The Justice Department has escalated federal involvement by filing lawsuits and motions to intervene against California’s heavy‑duty truck standards, arguing that the Clean Truck Partnership and related rules skirt congressional action that rescinded EPA waivers and amount to unlawful state enforcement of pre‑empted standards.

The U.S. Department of Justice has stepped up federal involvement in California’s heavy‑duty truck emissions regime, filing motions to intervene in two ongoing federal lawsuits and suing to block enforcement of state measures it says are pre‑empted by federal law. In its filings the department says California is trying to push a package of vehicle and engine standards—the Advanced Clean Trucks program, the Omnibus Low‑NOx rule, and pieces of the now‑withdrawn Advanced Clean Fleets proposal—through channels like the Clean Truck Partnership and other means, even after congressional action this summer that nullified EPA waivers underpinning those standards. Honestly, it’s a notable escalation. The DOJ describes the state’s conduct as “ongoing defiance” of federal law in motions filed in the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of California. (Sources: TTNews, DOJ press release, Reuters)

The motions, each accompanied by civil complaints and requests to intervene on behalf of the federal government and EPA, seek judicial declarations that the three California regulatory frameworks are pre‑empted under the Clean Air Act and that enforcement via the Clean Truck Partnership must stop while the cases proceed. DOJ’s filings argue that two joint resolutions of disapproval signed into law in June 2025 removed the force of EPA’s previously granted waivers for the ACT and Omnibus rules, and that the Advanced Clean Fleets elements never had an EPA waiver to begin with. The department emphasizes that, in its view, decisions about nationwide engine and vehicle standards — including any effective prohibition on internal‑combustion heavy‑duty powertrains by a specific date — are matters for the federal government, not a single state. (Sources: TTNews, DOJ press release, CARB ACT/ACF pages)

California’s 2023 Clean Truck Partnership, the centrepiece of the state’s industry engagement strategy, is at the heart of the dispute. CARB announced the Partnership as a voluntary agreement with major truck and engine manufacturers intended to accelerate zero‑emission vehicle development while providing manufacturers lead time, implementation collaboration and regulatory stability. In its 2023 statement CARB framed the Partnership as a pragmatic mechanism to balance air‑quality objectives with industry needs and to smooth deployment of charging and other infrastructure. Federal prosecutors now contend the Partnership operates as a de facto compliance mechanism that compels manufacturer behaviour despite the absence of valid federal waivers. (Sources: CARB press release, CARB ACT materials)

The move draws on parallel litigation by manufacturers. Major original‑equipment manufacturers, including Daimler Truck North America, Paccar, International and Volvo Group North America, have separately sued CARB and state officials, arguing that the Clean Truck Partnership is a backdoor mechanism to enforce pre‑empted standards and that CARB officials have threatened enforcement actions. Industry filings and congressional committee reporting allege that CARB staff have withheld vehicle approvals unless manufacturers agreed to follow California’s standards — an allegation that has figured prominently in both the private suits and the DOJ’s intervention rationale. Those complaints seek injunctions preventing CARB from imposing obligations through the Partnership or other administrative practices. (Sources: Reuters, CCJ, TTNews)

Industry associations and allied groups reacted quickly. The American Trucking Associations welcomed DOJ’s engagement, with Patrick Kelly, ATA’s vice‑president for energy and environmental affairs, saying the move limits what ATA called California’s regulatory overreach and protects national standardisation. The American Free Enterprise Chamber’s chief executive, Gentry Collins, praised congressional action that nullified the waivers and warned of the economic risk the groups believe would accompany a unilateral state‑level EV mandate. These endorsements, while influential for policy audiences, reflect organisational positions and should be read as advocacy in an active legal contest. (Sources: TTNews, Reuters)

For manufacturers, fleet operators and aftermarket suppliers the legal confrontation compounds existing technical and commercial uncertainties. CARB’s Advanced Clean Trucks regulation establishes manufacturer ZEV sales requirements and reporting obligations intended to stimulate battery‑electric and other zero‑emission technologies, while the Advanced Clean Fleets proposal had mapped phased fleet purchase mandates and a manufacturer sales mandate for certain model years. Those regulatory timelines directly affect OEM product planning, type‑approval schedules, supply‑chain sequencing for battery modules and power electronics, and fleet electrification roadmaps such as depot charging roll‑outs and duty‑cycle matching. If courts ultimately bar California from enforcing state‑specific mandates, OEMs and suppliers may avoid the sunk costs of definitive poundings toward model‑year ZEV allocations for California, but a ruling for California could force accelerated manufacturing, procurement and infrastructure investment across the supply chain. (Sources: CARB ACT page, CARB ACF page, CARB press release)

Legally the dispute foregrounds pre‑emption doctrine under the Clean Air Act and the interplay between congressional disapproval, EPA waiver authority and state exercise of regulatory power. DOJ’s filings underscore congressional action in June 2025 rescinding waivers for two of the standards and note that parts of the Advanced Clean Fleets initiative never received EPA waiver approval. The federal argument is that, absent a waiver, states cannot impose or effectively enforce standards that differ from or are more stringent than federal limits; California and its supporters counter that states retain authority to pursue more protective air‑quality policies where authorised. The competing positions set up a potential multi‑forum, multi‑year litigation path that will likely move through district courts and, almost certainly, into appellate review. (Sources: TTNews, DOJ press release, Reuters)

Outcomes remain unsettled and will shape strategic choices for OEMs, networked parts suppliers, charging and hydrogen infrastructure providers, and large fleet operators. A judicial win for DOJ and its private‑party allies would restore a single federal baseline for heavy‑duty emissions policy and reduce the near‑term risk of state‑specific model‑year mandates; a win for California would validate state efforts to accelerate ZEV adoption and could accelerate procurement timelines, compliance programmes and retrofit markets. In the near term, firms with exposure to the California market should adopt contingency plans that preserve flexibility — staggered production commitments, modular powertrain investment decisions, adjustable purchase agreements with suppliers, and scenario modelling for depot electrification — while closely tracking court schedules and regulatory pronouncements. (Sources: DOJ press release, Reuters, CCJ)

For aftermarket businesses, fleets and logistics managers the immediate imperative is pragmatic: maintain regulatory monitoring, protect supply‑chain optionality and avoid irreversible investments predicated on a single legal outcome. That means negotiating supplier agreements with exit or suspension clauses, prioritising equipment and charging investments that are interoperable across potential regulatory regimes, and briefing boardrooms and operations teams on both legal and technical contingencies. The dispute is not merely about law — it is about sequencing capital expenditure, manufacturing lead times, and the practicalities of integrating high‑power charging infrastructure and thermal management systems into existing workshop and depot footprints. Stakeholders should prepare for either scenario by ensuring their procurement and maintenance strategies can pivot as the litigation clarifies the regulatory baseline. (Sources: CARB ACT page, CARB ACF page, CARB press release, TTNews)

📌 Reference Map:

Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services