Healthcare Professionals, Scientists and Children Sue the EPA for Backtracking on Greenhouse Gas Regulation

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces mounting legal challenges following its decision to reverse a 2009 rule that established greenhouse gases as pollutants threatening public health. Two lawsuits were filed Wednesday in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, signaling a potentially protracted legal battle.

Legal Challenges Emerge

One lawsuit is brought by a coalition of 17 health and environmental groups against both the EPA and its administrator, Lee Zeldin. A second suit was filed on behalf of 18 young Americans. These challenges centre on the EPA’s reversal of the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which underpinned federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding

The 2009 finding, rooted in a 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, determined that existing and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” Reversing this finding effectively weakens the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions from sources like motor vehicles and power plants.

Did You Know? The 2009 endangerment finding was created in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that unambiguously held greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Concerns Over Legal and Scientific Basis

Critics argue the reversal lacks a sound basis in law or science. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, stated, “This repeal has no basis in law, science or reality, and human health is at extreme risk.” President Donald Trump, however, hailed the decision as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history.”

The Sierra Club’s Andres Restrepo contends the EPA is attempting “an end run” around the 2007 Supreme Court decision, relying on a “mischaracterization” of the ruling. The EPA maintains its decision is based on legal doctrine, and has distanced itself from a “Climate Working Group” whose findings were criticized by the scientific community and challenged in court.

Constitutional Arguments

The lawsuit brought by Our Children’s Trust and Public Justice on behalf of 18 young Americans argues the repeal violates their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and free exercise of religion, and infringes on the separation of powers. Elena Venner, a lead petitioner in the lawsuit, stated that the pollution from fossil fuels threatens basic health, even the ability to breathe.

Expert Insight: The lawsuit brought by young Americans introduces a novel legal argument, framing the EPA’s decision not merely as an environmental issue, but as a violation of fundamental constitutional rights.

What’s Next?

The EPA’s final ruling was published in the Federal Register, initiating a 60-day window for legal challenges. Depending on the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court. Further lawsuits from individual states are also possible.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the endangerment finding?

The 2009 endangerment finding states that current or projected concentrations of greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

Who is challenging the EPA’s decision?

A coalition of 17 health and environmental groups, as well as 18 young Americans, have filed lawsuits challenging the EPA’s reversal of the 2009 endangerment finding.

What was the Supreme Court’s role in this issue?

A 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA established that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, paving the way for the 2009 endangerment finding.

As these legal battles unfold, what role should public health concerns play in shaping environmental regulations?