First Circuit Stays Court Order Commandeering New Hampshire (Though Doesn't Rely on Anti-Commandeering Arguments)
A First Circuit panel stayed a district court injunction that would have required New Hampshire to maintain a vehicle emissions inspection program. The appellate court found the lawsuit was filed prematurely, as the state law ending the program had not yet taken effect. While the decision did not rely on anti-commandeering principles, it concluded the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the state.
- ▪The First Circuit stayed a lower court's injunction that would have forced New Hampshire to continue its vehicle emissions inspection program.
- ▪The court ruled that the plaintiff's lawsuit was premature because the state law repealing the program had not yet taken effect.
- ▪The appellate court found the injunction would cause irreparable harm by forcing the state to enforce a repealed program.
- ▪The court did not address anti-commandeering or federalism arguments, even though the state raised them.
- ▪The district court later denied the plaintiff's request to hold state officials in contempt for not complying with the injunction.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Commandeering First Circuit Stays Court Order Commandeering New Hampshire (Though Doesn't Rely on Anti-Commandeering Arguments) The appellate court rightly concludes that Gordon-Darby's lawsuit had multiple legal problems. Jonathan H. Adler | 5.1.2026 4:58 PM Yesterday a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stayed a district court injunction, pending appeal, that would have commandeered New Hampshire by requiring it to maintain a vehicle emissions inspection program to comply with the federal Clean Air Act. As I explained here and here, the court's order violated the anti-commandeering doctrine (though the state had not made much effort to make this argument).
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason.com
