Abigail George
In an interesting coincidence, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a ruling that the Department of Energy (DOE) violated federal law in issuing its
proposed rulemaking to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. Two weeks later, the Administration repealed the finding.
The case is Environmental
Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright (Young, J.) Judgment was entered on January
30 this year. The administration
repealed the endangerment finding on February 12.
The EPA’s endangerment
finding for greenhouse gases had been issued in 2009, under the Obama
Administration. The EPA at the time found that greenhouse gas emissions from
motor vehicles contribute to air pollution, endangering the public health or welfare.
Based upon this endangerment finding, the EPA promulgated a series of Clean Air
Act (CAA) regulations on motor vehicle emission standards.
In July of 2025, the DOE had
issued a report titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions on the U.S. Climate, finding that global warming estimates are
overexaggerated. A five-member Climate Working Group created the report, its membership
comprised of a physicist, an atmospheric scientist, a climatologist, a
meteorologist, and an economics professor.
The report contradicted the
scientific consensus that greenhouse gases significantly impact the environment.
Denying the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, the 151-page report found
that increased atmospheric carbon promotes plant growth by “enhancing
agricultural yields, and by neutralizing ocean alkalinity.”
Last August, citing the DOE
report, the EPA promulgated Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and
Gas Vehicle Standards (90 FR 36288). This proposed rulemaking sought to
repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, and its associated CAA regulations. Using
the report as authority, EPA said that in light of “significant doubt” on the
reliability of the 2009 endangerment finding, greenhouse gases cannot be
regulated under the CAA.
The Environmental Defense
Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists subsequently sued, seeking to disband
the Climate Working Group, save the EPA’s endangerment finding, and compel
disclosure requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The complaint alleged
that the Climate Working Group violated FACA by working “in secret,”
“manufactur[ing] a basis to reject” the 2009 endangerment finding, and failing
to provide “fairly balanced” viewpoints among its members. The suit lists as defendants
DOE Secretary Christopher Wright; the DOE; EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin; the
EPA; and the Climate Working Group.
In a four-page declaratory
judgment ruling, Judge Young ruled that the Climate Working Group was subject
to and failed to meet its requirements under FACA, granting plaintiffs’
requests for relief against DOE. The Court dismissed the EPA as a defendant, however,
finding “no persuasive evidence of conduct violative of FACA” on its part.
In February 2026, President
Trump announced that he was “officially terminating the so-called endangerment
finding,” finalizing the proposed rule. Trump described the 2009 endangerment
finding as “the basis for the Green New Scam” and having “nothing to do with
public health.” Zeldin, standing alongside Trump, described the move as “the
single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of
America.”
Trump and Zeldin’s action
eliminate the CAA’s ability to regulate the single largest source of greenhouse
gases in the United States: transportation. The Environmental Defense Fund
claims this unregulated pollution is likely to amount to 18 billion metric tons
of additional emissions between now and 2055, resulting in as many as 58,000
premature deaths and 37 million asthma attacks.
The justification for
these 18 billion metric tons is supposed benefits to the auto industry. “No
longer will automakers be pressured to shift their fleets toward electric
vehicles,” Zeldin stated. However, the benefit of reduced regulations has
drawbacks for the auto industry. For one, the decisions disrupt the predictable,
stable regulations which the industry relied upon, especially the growing
electric vehicle industry. If this de-regulation effort stands, it may put U.S.
automakers further behind a global market that is electrifying to meet demand.
Zeldin also justifies the
move as a control on agency power, stating “we used a very simple metric: If
Congress didn’t authorize it, EPA shouldn’t be doing it.” This sentiment echoes
increasing skepticism to the administrative state by Republicans, the Trump
administration, and the Supreme Court.
This action already is
under threat. A coalition of public health groups (including the American Lung
Association and the American Public Health Association) and Earthjustice have
already threatened suit. The Sierra Club
is also expected to file suit. “You can’t just stand by and let the EPA trash
its own authority because you’re scared of a potentially negative ruling,” said
senior attorney Andres Restrepo. “I think that it’s a bigger risk to do
nothing.”
Beyond the well-established science, earlier
courts had already established that the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions. While lawsuits are pending and more expected, there are concerns
about the likelihood of their success in the face of the Supreme Court and,
even if meritorious, the damage that will be done in the meantime.
Abigail George is a Legal
intern at McGregor Law Group in her third year at Boston University School of
Law. The opinions expressed herein are
her own.
