|
On June 16, 2026, Riker Danzig achieved a considerable victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of its client, the Township of Montclair (“Montclair”), in a novel case challenging Montclair’s Ordinance No. O-23-35 (the “Ordinance”) regarding the use of leaf blowers in Montclair, which, among other things, prohibits the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in Montclair. In what appears to be the first challenge of its kind in the nation, the Ordinance was being challenged on preemption grounds, arguing that the Ordinance was preempted by the Clean Air Act, which challenge the District Court dismissed with prejudice based on Montclair’s motion.
The Ordinance, which went into effect in October 2023, was originally challenged on multiple constitutional and statutory grounds by a group of fifteen landscaping companies and two residents (collectively “Plaintiffs”). On September 28, 2023, Plaintiffs had filed an emergent application by way of an Order to Show Cause seeking to enjoin the Ordinance in federal court on U.S. and State Constitutional grounds, asserting that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Takings Clause, as well as the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c). On October 14, 2023, the U.S. District Court denied Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause, holding that Plaintiffs failed to show both a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that they would suffer irreparable harm as a result of the Ordinance taking effect. Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the District Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause seeking to enjoin enforcement of Montclair’s Ordinance.
On August 20, 2025, four of the original fifteen Plaintiffs, including three landscaping companies and a Montclair resident, filed an Amended Complaint based solely on preemption grounds, arguing that the Ordinance imposes a zero-emissions standard preempted by the Clean Air Act. On October 13, 2025, Montclair filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
On June 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court granted Montclair’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding, among other things, that “[b]ecause the Ordinance is designed to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment, the presumption against preemption applies with ‘particular force’” and that Congress did “not demonstrate a ‘clear and manifest’ intent to preempt ordinances like the one at issue here” in Montclair. The District Court further found that the Ordinance “does not impose a quantifiable emissions limit, require pollution-limiting equipment or after-treatment specification, or dictate engine-emissions criteria” and therefore does not impose a “standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions” in violation of the Clean Air Act. In granting Montclair’s motion and dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice, the District Court reasoned: “Because the [Clean Air Act] does not preempt the Ordinance, Plaintiffs’ legal theory of preemption retained within the Amended Complaint is fatally defective. This is a defect another pleading cannot cure.”
Riker Danzig Partner Derrick R. Freijomil led our trial and appellate teams for Montclair, consisting of Partner Diane N. Hickey, Counsel Robert J. Magrane and Associate Keshav Agiwal. Derrick said of the ruling, “This is a significant win, and not only for our client. To our knowledge, this is the first reported decision in the country to address such a legal challenge to an ordinance of this kind. By upholding the ordinance, the court has provided important legal validation that other jurisdictions can now point to if they consider adopting similar measures.”
|
