EPA Poised to Revoke Landmark Climate Finding, Citing Supreme Court’s New Legal Landscape

In a move that could fundamentally reshape America’s approach to climate policy, the Trump administration is preparing to revoke the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding”—a scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. This sweeping action, expected in the coming months, would dismantle the legal foundation for federal climate regulations and represents one of the most consequential environmental policy shifts in decades.

The original endangerment finding, issued under President Obama, triggered a cascade of climate regulations including vehicle emissions standards and power plant rules. Now, the Trump EPA argues that recent Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the legal landscape, potentially stripping the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under existing law.

“We expect EPA to revoke the endangerment finding for legal reasons, not scientific ones,” said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at the Bracewell law firm who served as head of EPA’s air office during President George W. Bush’s administration. “This is the only way that they can ‘drive a stake through the heart of climate religion,’ as Administrator Zeldin has said.”

The Supreme Court’s Administrative Law Revolution

The second Trump administration’s confidence in challenging the endangerment finding stems largely from how President Trump reshaped the Supreme Court during his first term, legal experts say. In two 6-3 decisions from a conservative majority bolstered by Trump’s three appointees, the justices created new doctrine that significantly limited the power of federal regulatory agencies like the EPA.

“We’ve had an administrative law revolution,” said industry lawyer Matthew Leopold, who was the EPA’s general counsel in Trump’s first term, speaking at a forum last fall at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank. “The playing field that the Obama administration was playing on [when it made the endangerment finding] looks entirely different today.”

The transformation began in 2022 when the Supreme Court struck down Obama’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, in the case of West Virginia v. EPA. In that decision, the court established its so-called “major questions doctrine,” declaring that regulation of greenhouse gases was an issue of such great economic and political significance that the EPA could not regulate them without explicit direction from Congress.

The legal earthquake continued in 2024 when the Supreme Court overturned the principle that had guided regulatory law for 40 years. In a case over fishing regulations, the court eliminated the Chevron doctrine, which had held that federal agencies deserved deference in interpreting ambiguities in the law. The court ruled that judges, not agencies, should decide the meaning of the law—even though in the environmental realm, this typically involves application of scientific expertise and knowledge of the best available technologies for controlling pollution.

The Endangerment Finding’s Legal Vulnerabilities

The endangerment finding was based on EPA’s interpretation that the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutant” includes greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, ruling that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases if it determined they endangered public health or welfare.

However, the recent Supreme Court decisions have created new pathways for challenging this framework. The major questions doctrine suggests that agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. Given the transformative nature of climate regulations, which affect virtually every sector of the economy, EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases could be viewed as precisely the kind of major question requiring explicit legislative direction.

The elimination of Chevron deference further weakens EPA’s position. When the Clean Air Act was written in 1970, climate change was not on lawmakers’ radar, and the term “air pollutant” was not defined to specifically include greenhouse gases. Under the pre-Chevron framework, courts typically deferred to EPA’s reasonable interpretation that greenhouse gases fell within the Act’s broad language. Now, judges rather than scientific experts will make these determinations.

The Scientific Question That Won’t Go Away

While the Trump administration frames its challenge to the endangerment finding as a legal matter rather than a scientific one, the underlying science remains unchanged and continues to present a formidable obstacle. The original finding was based on extensive scientific evidence showing that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures, sea level rise, more extreme weather events, and numerous threats to public health.

Since 2009, the scientific consensus has only strengthened. Global temperatures have continued to rise, Arctic sea ice has declined precipitously, extreme weather events have become more frequent and severe, and the economic costs of climate-related disasters have soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Legal experts anticipate that EPA will attempt to argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have changed what constitutes sufficient evidence of endangerment, or that the agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act must now be more restrictive. However, this approach faces significant challenges, as the underlying physical reality of greenhouse gas impacts remains unchanged.

Potential Legal and Policy Consequences

If successful, revoking the endangerment finding would have far-reaching consequences beyond simply eliminating existing climate regulations. It would prevent the EPA from developing new greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, power plants, oil and gas operations, and industrial facilities. It would also undermine international climate agreements, as the United States’ ability to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement depends heavily on federal regulations.

The move would likely face immediate legal challenges from environmental groups, states, and others. Courts would need to grapple with whether the Supreme Court’s recent administrative law decisions apply retroactively to the endangerment finding, and whether EPA can change its scientific determination based on legal rather than scientific grounds.

Some legal scholars argue that even under the new Supreme Court framework, EPA would still have a strong case for maintaining the endangerment finding. The Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutant” remains broad, and greenhouse gases clearly meet the technical criteria of substances emitted into the ambient air. The major questions doctrine might require clearer congressional authorization for specific regulatory approaches, but it doesn’t necessarily negate the agency’s fundamental authority to address pollutants that endanger public health.

The Political and Economic Stakes

The battle over the endangerment finding represents a microcosm of the broader debate over climate policy in the United States. Environmental advocates view it as an existential threat to federal climate action, while industry groups and conservative policymakers see it as correcting regulatory overreach that has imposed significant economic costs.

The economic stakes are enormous. If the endangerment finding stands, it provides the legal foundation for trillions of dollars in climate-related investments and regulations over the coming decades. If it falls, it could dramatically slow the transition away from fossil fuels and reshape America’s energy economy.

International observers are watching closely, as the United States’ approach to climate regulation has global implications. Many countries look to U.S. policy as a benchmark, and a retreat from federal climate action could influence decisions in other major economies.

Looking Ahead

The EPA’s move to revoke the endangerment finding is expected to trigger a lengthy rulemaking process, including public comment periods and likely legal challenges. The outcome will depend not only on the strength of EPA’s legal arguments but also on how courts interpret the new administrative law landscape created by the Supreme Court.

What’s clear is that the debate over climate regulation has entered a new phase, one where legal doctrine rather than scientific evidence may determine the scope of federal action. As the Trump administration seeks to “drive a stake through the heart of climate religion,” the courts will face the complex task of reconciling scientific reality with evolving legal principles.

The coming months will reveal whether the endangerment finding—once considered settled law—can survive in this transformed legal environment, or whether America’s approach to climate change will be fundamentally altered by judicial decisions that have nothing to do with the underlying science of global warming.

Tags

Trump EPA, endangerment finding, climate change, greenhouse gases, Supreme Court, major questions doctrine, Chevron deference, Clean Air Act, environmental regulation, administrative law, climate policy, fossil fuels, environmental law, regulatory authority, climate science, EPA Administrator Zeldin, West Virginia v. EPA, Massachusetts v. EPA, Paris Agreement, environmental groups, industry lawyers, Bracewell law firm, American Enterprise Institute, Matthew Leopold, Jeff Holmstead, climate regulations, vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, international climate agreements, legal challenges, rulemaking process, scientific evidence, public health, economic costs, energy economy, federal climate action, judicial decisions, global warming, environmental policy, conservative majority, Trump appointees, climate religion, transformative regulations, ambient air, scientific consensus, extreme weather, sea level rise, Arctic sea ice, climate-related disasters, energy transition, fossil fuel industry, environmental advocates, economic implications, global implications, legal doctrine, scientific reality, policy shift, landmark decision, regulatory overreach, legal framework, environmental protection, climate commitments

Viral Sentences

The Trump EPA is preparing to revoke the 2009 endangerment finding, potentially dismantling the legal foundation for all federal climate regulations.

“We expect EPA to revoke the endangerment finding for legal reasons, not scientific ones,” said Jeff Holmstead, signaling a strategic shift in climate policy.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have created what experts call an “administrative law revolution” that could strip EPA of its climate authority.

The major questions doctrine suggests agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization.

The elimination of Chevron deference means judges, not scientific experts, will now decide the meaning of environmental law.

Global temperatures have continued to rise, extreme weather events have become more frequent, and the economic costs of climate disasters have soared into the hundreds of billions annually.

Revoking the endangerment finding would prevent the EPA from developing new greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, power plants, oil and gas operations, and industrial facilities.

The battle represents a microcosm of the broader debate over climate policy in the United States, with enormous economic stakes worth trillions of dollars.

International observers are watching closely, as the United States’ approach to climate regulation has global implications and influences decisions in other major economies.

The debate over climate regulation has entered a new phase, where legal doctrine rather than scientific evidence may determine the scope of federal action.

As the Trump administration seeks to “drive a stake through the heart of climate religion,” courts will face the complex task of reconciling scientific reality with evolving legal principles.

The coming months will reveal whether America’s approach to climate change will be fundamentally altered by judicial decisions that have nothing to do with the underlying science of global warming.

,