The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday halted an attempt by the Trump administration to delay implementation of new penalties for automakers that fail to meet fuel efficiency standards.

The decision by a panel composed of Circuit Judges Ralph Winter, Rosemary Pooler and Barrington Parker represents a win for states including New York, California and Pennsylvania, as well as environmental groups that joined them in arguing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lacked authority and violated a number of federal statutes in delaying implementation of the penalty rule.

“The fuel efficiency standards penalty rule is a common sense measure that would protect consumers' pocketbooks while reducing the carbon emissions that harm our health and drive climate change,” New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “As we've proven again and again, when the Trump administration puts special interests before public health and our environment, we'll take them to court—and we will win.”

Shortly before the Trump administration took over in early 2017, the NHTSA under the previous administration announced a rule increasing the penalty rate for automakers that violated federal fuel efficiency standards. The rule would increase from $5.50 to $14 per tenth of a mile per gallon. The increase was mandated by passage in 2015 of an update to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act.

Proponents of the move hailed the rule as an environmental victory. According to Schneiderman's office, more stringent penalties would keep 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from ever being produced by vehicles built under the new rule.

The new rule was set to take effect in July 2017, but before that the new NHTSA leadership under President Donald Trump announced its plan to suspend the increase. In court filings, the administration said it was delaying implementation “indefinitely” to reconsider the previously issued “interim final rule.” It noted that a number of industry groups opposed the move. Two groups, the Association of Global Automakers and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, joined the suit at the federal appellate level as intervenors.

The NHTSA argued that the Second Circuit did not have jurisdiction over the matter, as the environmental groups and state attorneys general lacked standing with their “impermissibly speculative” and untimely claims, which are “dependent on the actions of third parties.”

The states and environmental groups argued in their separate briefs that they did in fact have standing, because environmental rules impact the members of the groups and residents of the states. The NHTSA lacked the authority to suspend the implementation of civil penalties that were ordered by Congress, they argued, and violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

“This ruling is a victory for consumers, public health, and the planet. The court rightly thwarted the Trump administration's illegal bid to undercut successful fuel economy standards that are cleaning our air, saving drivers money on gas and improving the nation's energy security,” Luke Tonachel, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean vehicles and fuels project, said in a statement. “Automakers should be adding fuel-saving technology to vehicles, not trying to find a cheap way to avoid it.”

The panel's order on Monday came without a full opinion. However, it ordered that the petitions for review were granted, seemingly clearing away any question about reviewability or standing. The court also vacated the older rules the NHTSA put back in place while it said it was conducting its review.

The panel said it would issue an opinion later.

The NHTSA did not respond to a request for comment.