Senate Votes to Reject California’s Ban of Gas-Powered Cars

On May 22, the Senate approved three House-backed Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that overturned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waivers, which had effectively imposed a de facto ban on gas-powered cars in California.

The state has long been allowed to set vehicle emissions standards that are stricter than federal regulations. In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the California Air Resources Board to develop a plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a rule that was later finalized and adopted by several other states. In December 2024, the Biden administration granted California a waiver to enforce the rule, allowing the state to move forward with new requirements to increase the share of zero-emission new cars, trucks and SUVs sold. Under the requirements, automakers would face penalties for failing to meet the targets. The automotive industry routinely contended that the ban was unrealistic and the implementation timeline was largely unattainable, especially as electric vehicle (EV) sales slow nationwide. Automakers have also maintained that California’s rules reinforce a patchwork of state-level regulations, creating burdensome compliance challenges.

Today’s votes followed weeks of deliberation among Senate leadership over whether to bring the measures to the floor amid ongoing controversy around whether the waivers fall under the scope of the CRA. The CRA allows Congress to overturn recent federal regulations with a simple majority in both chambers and presidential approval, bypassing the Senate filibuster. Its use in this case sparked debate after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) advised Congress that the CRA could not be used to block California’s emissions standards, as the EPA’s action constituted a waiver, not a rule. The Senate parliamentarian concurred with the GAO, prompting internal debate among Senate leadership on whether to move forward. Democrats have strongly opposed using the CRA in this instance, warning that it sets a troubling precedent by potentially allowing Congress to invalidate a broader range of agency decisions and actions.

Lee Zeldin, President Trump’s head of the EPA, requested a review of the rule under the CRA. Shortly thereafter, the House voted 246-164 to advance the resolution (H.J.Res.88). The vote largely followed party lines, though 35 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the measure. The Senate then advanced the resolution to President Trump for his signature in a 51-44 vote, also along party lines. Notably, one Democratic senator, Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), voted in favor of the resolution, citing her “special responsibility to stand up for the more than 1 million Michiganders whose livelihoods depend on the U.S. auto industry.”

Sen. Slotkin’s comments underscore the potential impact California’s ban could have had on automakers. She further stated, “As of today, not a single one of these states is anywhere near complying with California’s requirements and some are even reversing course. That means car manufacturers, including the Detroit Three, will be forced to eventually stop the sale of gas-powered cars in these states or pay competitors, particularly Tesla, for credits to remain compliant.” Following the Senate’s passage, Zeldin issued a statement saying the resolution “not only prevents California from implementing their attempts at EV mandate actions but ensures that they can never do something similar again.”

In addition to H.J.Res.88, the Senate passed two related resolutions—H.J.Res.87 and H.J.Res.89—aimed at stopping California from enforcing rules that promote zero-emissions truck sales and implementing stricter nitrogen oxide limits. Despite today’s significant win for the auto industry, the fight will continue as California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state “intend[s] to sue the Trump administration,” calling the move “unprecedented.”

This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding resolutions for gas-powered cars in California. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.