Appeals – Stay

Listen to this article

Where a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the repeal of New Hampshire’s motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program, the state’s request for a stay pending appeal should be granted because the state has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal.

“This case concerns New Hampshire’s recent repeal of the State’s motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program (‘I/M program’). Defendants-Appellants, the Commissioners for both New Hampshire’s Department of Safety and its Department of Environmental Services (together, the ‘Commissioners’), seek a stay pending appeal of the district court’s January 27, 2026, preliminary injunction, which enjoined the Commissioners ‘from taking or directing any action to terminate, suspend, or otherwise cease implementation or enforcement of’ New Hampshire’s I/M program and to ‘take all steps necessary to resume and ensure the continued implementation and enforcement of’ that program. For the reasons described below, we grant the Commissioners’ motion to stay the injunction.

“Plaintiff-Appellee Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc. (‘Gordon-Darby’) is the parent company of Gordon-Darby NHOST Services, Inc. (‘Gordon-Darby NHOST’), which was the sole vendor contracted to administer I/M services to New Hampshire motorists. In June 2025, New Hampshire adopted House Bill 2 (‘HB 2’), which repealed the State’s I/M program effective January 31, 2026. 2025 N.H. Laws §§141:244-141:256. On October 7, 2025, Gordon-Darby notified the Commissioners of its intent to sue under the Clean Air Act (‘CAA’) for alleged violations related to the repeal of the I/M program. On December 8, 2025, Gordon-Darby sued the Commissioners under the CAA’s citizen suit provision. 42 U.S.C. §7604(a). …

“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). …

“Given our conclusion that the Commissioners have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed in demonstrating that Gordon-Darby has not met its burden of alleging that the Commissioners are ‘in violation of’ an emission standard or limitation under §7604(a)(1), we find it unnecessary to consider any of their remaining arguments. …

“Given the nature of the suit and the relief provided by the district court, we conclude that the Commissioners have demonstrated that irreparable injury would flow from allowing the preliminary injunction to stand. …

“Because we conclude that the Commissioners have met their burden, we grant their motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.”

Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc. v. Quinn, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-087-26) (7 pages) (Docket No. 26-1209) (April 30, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.