A coalition of health and environmental organizations has filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging its recent revocation of the “endangerment finding,” a critical legal determination that has underpinned U.S. Federal climate regulations since 2009. The lawsuit, filed in Washington D.C. Circuit court on , argues that the EPA’s rollback of this finding endangers public health and welfare.
The “endangerment finding” establishes that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to both. This determination has been the foundation for regulations limiting emissions from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources. The current administration’s decision to revoke it is widely considered a significant setback in U.S. Efforts to address the climate crisis.
The lawsuit was brought by a diverse group of organizations including the American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, along with eleven other public health and environmental organizations. Legal representation is being provided by Clean Air Task Force and Earthjustice. The EPA and its administrator, Lee Zeldin, are named as defendants in the suit.
“EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding and safeguards to limit vehicle emissions marks a complete dereliction of the agency’s mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act,” stated Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This shameful and dangerous action… is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science.”
The move to rescind the endangerment finding was publicly lauded by by Donald Trump, who described it as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history.” Administrator Zeldin echoed this sentiment, asserting that previous administrations had used the finding to advance a “leftwing wishlist of costly climate policies.”
The EPA defended its decision, stating that it was “carefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation” of the endangerment finding and revoked it to comply with the law. An agency spokesperson asserted that the Trump EPA is “committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended – not as others might wish it to be.” The EPA further claimed that Congress never intended to grant the agency the authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations on cars and trucks.
However, legal experts and public health officials point to prior court rulings that have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Dr. Georges Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association, emphasized on a press call that the Supreme Court affirmed this authority nearly two decades ago, and subsequent court decisions have consistently reaffirmed it. “The science is clear here. The endangerment findings [are] based on decades of scientific consensus that climate change is real.”
Beyond the lawsuit filed by the established environmental and health groups, a separate petition challenging the rescission of the endangerment finding was filed on by 18 young people, ranging in age from 1 to 22, from across the United States. Represented by Our Children’s Trust and Public Justice, the petitioners argue that the EPA’s action violates their constitutional rights.
Elena Venner, the lead petitioner in the youth-led challenge, stated, “The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding violates my first amendment right to practice my faith and my fifth amendment rights to life and liberty.”
The revocation of the endangerment finding eliminates existing greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks and could pave the way for a broader dismantling of climate regulations affecting stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities. The implications for public health are significant, as climate change is linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, including respiratory illnesses, heatstroke, and the spread of infectious diseases. The legal challenges currently underway will determine whether the EPA’s rollback of this critical climate safeguard will stand.
