Summary
The First Circuit granted New Hampshire officials' motion to stay pending appeal a preliminary injunction requiring continued implementation and enforcement of the state's motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program. The court held that the officials made a strong showing that Gordon-Darby had not alleged a cognizable present or past violation of an emission standard or limitation under the Clean Air Act's citizen-suit provision, particularly because the alleged violations were prospective. The court also found irreparable injury to the State and determined that the balance of harms and public interest favored granting the stay.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Commissioners were entitled to a stay pending appeal under the four-factor stay standard.
- Whether Gordon-Darby had shown a likelihood of success on a Clean Air Act citizen-suit claim based on communications announcing the future repeal of the inspection and maintenance program and termination of its vendor contract.
- Whether the Clean Air Act permits a citizen suit based solely on a wholly prospective violation that had not occurred when the complaint was filed.
- Whether enforcement of the preliminary injunction would cause irreparable injury to the State and whether the balance of harms and public interest favored a stay.
Holdings
- The Commissioners were entitled to a stay because they made a strong showing of likely success on the merits, demonstrated irreparable injury from being required to enforce a program repealed by the state legislature, and established that the balance of harms and public interest favored a stay.
- The Commissioners made a strong showing that Gordon-Darby was unlikely to succeed because the communications announcing the program's future repeal and the termination of the vendor contract likely did not constitute violations of an emission standard or limitation under the Clean Air Act.
- The Clean Air Act likely does not authorize a citizen suit based solely on a wholly prospective violation where, at the time of filing, the defendant had a clean record of compliance and no present or prior violation had been alleged.
Key quotations
“We conclude the Commissioners have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on appeal on the ground that Gordon-Darby failed to allege cognizable violations under § 7604(a)(1).” (-3-)
“We do not read Gwaltney to authorize suits for violations that are, at the time of the complaint, purely prospective.” (-5-)
“Because we conclude that the Commissioners have met their burden, we grant their motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.” (-7-)
Factual background
New Hampshire enacted House Bill 2 in June 2025, repealing the State's motor-vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program effective January 31, 2026. Gordon-Darby Holdings, the parent of the sole vendor administering the program, notified state officials of its intent to sue under the Clean Air Act and filed suit in December 2025. Before the effective repeal date, the State announced that it would discontinue inspection requirements and notified the vendor of its intent to terminate the vendor contract; the district court later enjoined the Commissioners from terminating or ceasing enforcement of the program.
Procedural history
Gordon-Darby sued New Hampshire officials under the Clean Air Act's citizen-suit provision after the State enacted legislation repealing its motor-vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program. The District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction on January 27, 2026, requiring the Commissioners to continue implementing and enforcing the program. The Commissioners appealed and sought a stay pending appeal, which the First Circuit granted.