Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc. v. Quinn

── Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc. v. Quinn ── Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 26-1209 GORDON-DARBY HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ROBERT L. QUINN, in the official capacity as Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al., Defendants, Appellants. Before Barron, Chief Judge, Aframe and Dunlap, Circuit Judges. ORDER OF COURT Entered: April 30, 2026 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 In June 2025, New Hampshire adopted House Bill 2 ("HB 2"), which repealed the State's I/M program effective January 31, 2026. 2025 N.H. Laws §§ 141:244-141:256.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).  I. Standard of Review "A stay pending appeal is 'an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review.'" Rhode Island v. Trump, 155 F.4th 35, 41 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting New York v. Trump, 133 F.4th 51, 65 (1st Cir. 2025)). As the party seeking a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, the Commissioners bear the burden of justifying that they are entitled to such extraordinary relief. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009); see also Somerville Pub. Schs. v. McMahon, 139 F.4th 63, 68 (1st Cir. 2025); Rhode Island, 155 F.4th at 41. We consider four factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Rhode Island, 155 F.4th at 41 (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). Of these factors, the first two "are 'the most critical.'" Id. (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). Within the stay framework, we review legal conclusions de novo. See id. at 44-45. II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The CAA is a complicated statutory scheme that contemplates "cooperative federalism." Env't Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529, 535 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 675 F.3d 917, 921 (5th Cir. 2012); see Conservation L. Found. v. Acad. Express, LLC, 129 F.4th 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2025) (noting division of "responsibilities among state and federal governments" under the CAA). The CAA empowe