CONCORD – A federal judge ordered the state Commissioners of Safety and Environmental Services Thursday to “take all steps necessary to resume and ensure the continued implementation and enforcement of” New Hampshire’s vehicle inspection program.
U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty had issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Commissioners “from taking or directing any action to terminate, suspend, or otherwise cease
implementation or enforcement of” the program. On Thursday McCafferty denied the state’s request to stay that order.
The legislature passed the law eliminating the annual inspection program for cars and trucks and Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed it into law last June as part of HB2, scheduled to become effective Jan. 31, 2026.
The state was made aware by federal and state officials that repealing the inspection program without first obtaining the EPA’s approval regarding federal environmental law would violate the Clean Air Act.
“The state repealed the I/M program anyway,” McCafferty said. “The state then began informing the public that motor vehicle inspections would no longer be required as of February 1, despite knowing that inspections would still be required under federal law. Then, after this court issued its preliminary injunction specifically ordering the Commissioners to continue carrying out the I/M program, the state issued public guidance that they would not begin requiring motorists to obtain inspections for several months, before later issuing subsequent guidance that inspections will not be required at all.
“The state’s actions have generated substantial public confusion regarding the requirements and legal status of the (inspection) I/M program. To be clear: the court does not view the I/M program as indefinitely suspended,” McCafferty wrote.
She said the Commissioners are subject to a court order enjoining them “from taking or directing any action to terminate, suspend, or otherwise cease implementation or enforcement of the” program and requiring them “to take all steps necessary to resume and ensure the continued implementation and enforcement of” that program.
“Staying the injunction would only result in greater confusion regarding the requirements and status of the I/M program and would foster disrespect for court orders and the rule of law,” McCafferty wrote.
The legislation eliminated requirements under state law that passenger vehicles undergo annual safety and emissions inspection, but had no effect on whether those inspections continue to be required under federal law.
“This legislation was enacted despite clear communications to the State from both the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services —one of the defendants in this very case—as well as the EPA that a repeal of state statutory authority to administer the I/M program would violate the Clean Air Act and could lead to civil penalties, loss of federal funds, or even enforcement actions from the EPA or via a citizen suit.
“New Hampshire did not heed these warnings,” McCafferty wrote.
The company that administered the inspection program Gordon-Darby Holdings sued the state after its contract was ended. At an emergency meeting Feb. 4, Attorney General John Formella asked the Council for a 60-day extension of its contract with Gordon-Darby.
The Council voted against his request, putting the state in the position of likely being in violation of the EPA’s federal Clean Air Act and throwing into question what happens next for vehicle inspections in the Granite State.
Commissioners also said it could open the state to more legal trouble from environmental groups and a $55,000 a day fine that could lead to loss of federal highway funds.
Robert Scott, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Services, said at the emergency meeting it could be a year or more before the state gets a decision on the request for a waiver from the federal government to meet standards under the federal Clean Air Act.
On Thursday, Executive Councilor John Stephen, R-Manchester, said a federal district judge does not have the authority to override a lawful decision made by the council.
“Make no mistake about what this contract actually is. Gordon-Darby collects mandatory fees from every driver in this state. That is a de facto tax on every Granite Stater who owns a car. The only people who have the authority to impose that kind of burden on the citizens of this state are elected legislators — not federal judges, and not government contractors with a 20-year monopoly. Because there was no enacted policy requirement at the time of our vote, we cannot be forced into any contract that is contrary to our state policy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with that action,” Stephen said.
“What this court has done is unprecedented. A federal judge is attempting to compel a sovereign state to impose a mandatory fee on its own citizens against the will of its elected officials. If this precedent stands, no state constitutional office in America is safe from being commandeered by a federal court. The Executive Council will not accept that,” he said.
“Finally, I will reiterate: any company that uses a federal court to try to force a de facto tax on the people of New Hampshire should not receive another dollar of state business, and I will do all I can to assure that as long as I serve on this Council. That is a promise,” Stephen said.
Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill, D-Lebanon, disagreed.
“Once again, New Hampshire residents are experiencing needless turmoil due to the Legislature’s reckless decision to eliminate auto inspections without putting a responsible plan in place. Our Commissioner of Environmental Services testified to the Legislature that repealing auto inspections would require a minimum of one year because the state would need to revise its SIP with the federal EPA, a complex process that requires public notification and time for public comment,” Liot Hill said.
“He warned the Legislature that moving forward with inadequate time would result in costly litigation. Nonetheless, the Legislature disregarded the testimony of experts and moved forward with only a six month window. Predictably, the insufficient time has caused confusion for the public and significant costs to the taxpayers who bear the burden of paying for the state to defend itself in this lawsuit, as well as the prospect of fines for non-compliance,” Liot Hill said.
At the emergency meeting of the Executive Council, Attorney General Formella advised the Council to enter into a short-term contract to comply with the judge’s ruling while giving the state sufficient time to secure the necessary federal government approvals to fully repeal auto inspections in New Hampshire.
“The majority of the Executive Council voted to disregard the AG’s guidance, and the result is now more confusion for residents and costs for taxpayers. Brinksmanship is a risky strategy, and the taxpayers are the ones who pay the price,” Liot Hill said.
House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn, said, “Of course an unaccountable federal judge continues to side with self-interested foreign corporations against the will of the people.
“Judges are not legislators, and they do not get to determine the law in this state. New Hampshire has kicked Gordon Darby to the curb and we have no intention of ever going back. Vehicle inspections are dead in the Live Free or Die state, no matter what delusion this judge is under,” Osborne said.
Formella’s spokesman said: “We are reviewing the order to determine appropriate next steps. Our public guidance issued on February 13, 2026, remains in effect.”
Contrary to McCafferty’s order, Formella’s guidance for drivers says the “vehicle inspection program is suspended until further notice.”
Inspection stations will no longer be authorized to issue state inspection stickers and vehicles will not be required to obtain an annual state inspection at this time.
“Drivers are still responsible under current law to ensure that any vehicle driven in New Hampshire is safe to operate, regardless of the status of the inspection program,” the guildance said.