The New Hampshire Executive Council voted 3–2 Wednesday to reject a request to extend the state’s contract with the company that operates the vehicle inspection system — despite a federal court order requiring inspections to continue.
During an emergency meeting of the council on Wednesday, three Republican councilors — Joe Kenney, John Stephen, and Dave Wheeler — expressed outrage over a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ordering New Hampshire to keep its inspection and emissions program in place.
“So you’re asking us to approve a contract for a program that is not authorized by New Hampshire law,” Stephen asked Attorney General John Formella.
“Yes, correct,” Formella replied. “We have a program that is not authorized under New Hampshire law, but which the state has been ordered to continue by federal court order. It creates a complicated legal situation.”
The Department of Safety requested a 60-day extension of the state’s contract with Kentucky-based Gordon-Darby in order to comply with the judge’s order while the state awaits action from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Republican legislators have made eliminating the vehicle inspection mandate a priority, arguing it does nothing to improve road safety while adding expense and inconvenience for working-class families. Polls show Granite Staters support ending the mandate.
On Jan. 27, Judge McCafferty halted the state’s plan to end annual vehicle inspections, even though lawmakers had voted to repeal the program effective Jan. 31, 2026.
In her ruling, McCafferty found that New Hampshire’s vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program is part of the state’s federally approved State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the state cannot eliminate the program without prior EPA approval.
Although New Hampshire officials submitted a request to amend its federal plan in December 2025, the EPA has not yet approved the change. Without that approval, McCafferty ruled, ending inspections would place the state “indisputably” in violation of federal law.
The court ordered state officials to “take all steps necessary to resume and ensure the continued implementation and enforcement” of the inspection program.
During Tuesday’s Executive Council meeting, Gov. Kelly Ayotte pressed Formella about Gordon-Darby’s financial interest in the case.
“They made about $4.1 million a year on this contract since roughly 2004, correct?” Ayotte asked.
“That’s correct,” Formella said, adding that the company did not file a breach-of-contract claim but instead brought a citizen lawsuit under the Clean Air Act.
“Yes, their motivation is that they are not going to get that revenue,” Formella said.
“These parties are suing us right now in federal court, correct, and they are aware the legislature voted — they’re elected by the people of the state — and they voted to eliminate inspections, correct?” Ayotte added.
Formella told the council that the court had already made its decision and that the remaining question was how the judge might respond if the state failed to comply.
“There is a risk that either the EPA, but more importantly the court, would view us as not having taken the steps we need to take under the order issuing the preliminary injunction,” Formella said. “It might decide it’s necessary to impose other consequences on the state, like civil penalties. That’s possible.”
According to Formella, the maximum fine New Hampshire could face is $55,000 per day of noncompliance.
Democrat Karen Liot Hill was joined by Republican Janet Stevens in voting in favor of the extension. Following the council’s vote, the state now lacks an approved vendor contract to operate the technical side of the inspection program, even as the federal injunction remains in effect.
The New Hampshire Department of Justice has announced it will suspend enforcement of inspection violations until April 26, 2026, while officials determine how to comply with the court order.
Republican lawmakers are also exploring “Live Free and Drive” legislation that would reduce the fine for a missing inspection sticker to $1 and prohibit police from stopping drivers solely for inspection violations.
For now, inspections technically remain required under federal court order, but the system’s future remains uncertain as the state awaits EPA action and weighs its next legal steps.
Drivers are being advised to monitor guidance from the Department of Safety as the legal dispute continues.