(BOISE) – Pushing back against a Biden Administration rule demanding greenhouse gas reductions from any state receiving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador joined Kentucky and 19 other states in a lawsuit today, arguing that Congress has not given the U.S. Department of Transportation the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The complaint alleges that FHWA has overstepped its authority, and the Biden Administration has circumvented the Constitution and the sovereignty of the states.

The complaint, filed Thursday, December 21st in the United States District Court in Paducah, KY, states, ”The Constitution is also clear that action by the States cannot be mandated through federal action like the Final Rule.  The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. [because] ‘the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.’”

“Idaho is one of the fastest growing states in the nation,” said Attorney General Labrador, “and our state is investing billions of dollars in critical infrastructure, including over 700 projects with the Idaho Department of Transportation that expand or improve the national highway system. Idaho citizens and businesses depend on effective and efficient surface transportation. The federal government demanding a reduction in vehicle miles traveled is ridiculous.  States simply cannot be forced to implement the policy whims of a federal government, and the Constitution is clear about this.”

Idaho, like other state DOTs, receives funding from the Federal Highway Administration which subjects the Idaho Department of Transportation to numerous regulations, including the Final Rule challenged in this lawsuit.  The State seeks the ability to continue to make decisions to maximize the benefits of its highway investments by avoiding the harm of being subjected to unlawful regulations via the Final Rule, which would impose costs and restrict the State’s choices in implementing its federally assisted highway program.