California’s Democratic leadership is preparing for a major legal showdown with Washington after the U.S. Senate voted to overturn the state’s long-standing authority to enforce stricter vehicle emissions standards, including its plan to phase out gas-powered cars.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans approved a measure revoking several environmental waivers granted under previous administrations that allowed California to set rules exceeding federal emissions requirements. The vote effectively nullified a recent Environmental Protection Agency approval permitting the state to require a transition to all-electric vehicle sales by 2035.

The decision immediately sparked outrage from California officials, who accused Republicans of abusing congressional procedures and undermining decades of environmental policy.

Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the vote in a sharply worded statement, calling it unlawful and politically motivated. He argued that Republicans bypassed Senate norms to reverse climate policies that have existed for generations.

“This vote is illegal and unconstitutional,” Newsom said. “Republicans ignored their own parliamentarian and shredded decades of precedent. We will not stand by while Trump-aligned Republicans roll back clean air protections and hand America’s economic future to China. California will fight this in court.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed that sentiment, announcing the state’s intent to sue the federal government to restore the waivers. Bonta accused Republicans of misusing the Congressional Review Act to target California specifically, framing the move as part of a broader political effort to dismantle the state’s environmental leadership.

“The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act against California is unlawful,” Bonta said. “These waivers exist to protect public health and the environment. California will not sit quietly while Congress attempts to strip away those protections.”

Democratic lawmakers in Washington also warned that the Senate’s action could have far-reaching consequences beyond emissions rules.

Senator Adam Schiff of California argued that Republicans had created a dangerous precedent by sidestepping the filibuster. He described the maneuver as a gift to the fossil fuel industry and warned that it could permanently weaken Senate norms.

“If this tactic succeeds, it won’t stop here,” Schiff said. “Republicans have blown a hole in the filibuster to serve the oil industry.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed similar concerns, accusing Republicans of triggering a procedural “nuclear” option. Speaking to reporters, Schumer said overruling the Senate parliamentarian would eventually come back to haunt the GOP.

“What goes around comes around,” Schumer warned. “This kind of escalation changes the Senate forever.”

New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich also criticized the vote ahead of its passage, arguing that overturning California’s Clean Air Act waivers could allow Congress to nullify virtually any agency decision nationwide.

“This sets a precedent that threatens our entire regulatory system,” Heinrich said. “It risks stalling projects across the country, driving up energy costs, and creating widespread uncertainty. That’s not what Americans want.”

Republicans, however, dismissed the Democratic backlash as hypocritical and overblown.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota pushed back against claims that Republicans undermined the filibuster, pointing out that Democrats have repeatedly called for its elimination in recent years.

“The only people who have tried to abolish the legislative filibuster are Democrats,” Thune said at a press conference. “Many of the same senators complaining today have voted to eliminate it entirely.”

Thune also framed the vote as a narrow dispute over whether unelected agencies or elected lawmakers should decide the scope of regulatory authority. He argued that Congress, not the Government Accountability Office or the executive branch, should determine what qualifies as a binding rule.

Other Republicans focused on the practical consequences of California’s electric vehicle mandate.

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming criticized the state’s plan as unrealistic and harmful to working Americans, particularly in rural and energy-producing states.

“California’s mandates ban gas-powered cars and trucks and threaten Americans’ freedom to choose what they drive,” Barrasso said. He noted that electric vehicles currently account for only about 7 percent of nationwide vehicle sales and roughly 20 percent in California, with growth slowing.

Despite those numbers, Barrasso pointed out, California’s regulations require 35 percent of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2026 — less than a year away — and 100 percent by 2035.

“That’s fantasyland,” he said. “These mandates will hurt ranchers, farmers, and families who depend on affordable, reliable transportation.”

As California prepares its legal challenge, the dispute is shaping up to be one of the most significant clashes yet between state climate policy and federal authority. The outcome could determine not only the future of California’s electric vehicle mandate, but also how much power states retain to go beyond federal environmental standards in the years ahead.