The Repeal That Could Backfire
In February 2026, the U.S. government officially moved to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding, a landmark 2009 determination that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. EPA head Lee Zeldin called it the "largest deregulatory action in U.S. history," claiming it would remove $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs. But legal experts warn this decision may trigger consequences that its architects never intended.
The endangerment finding traces its legal roots to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that greenhouse gases fall squarely under Clean Air Act jurisdiction. The Clean Air Act itself explicitly references "weather" and "climate" as welfare concerns the EPA must address. To repeal the finding, the administration must ultimately survive judicial review at the highest level.
Legal Experts Predict Chaos
Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists has called the repeal an "incredible overreach," while Hana Vizcarra of Earthjustice warns the aftermath will be "chaotic." The core legal problem is structural: without federal EPA oversight of greenhouse emissions, individual states would be free to set their own conflicting standards, creating a regulatory patchwork that even the Alliance for Automotive Innovation fears.
Michael Lewyn of Touro Law argues it is "unlikely the court would say EPA has no power" over greenhouse gases, given existing precedent. Meanwhile, Romany Webb of Columbia University says predicting the outcome is "especially hard" given shifts in the Court's composition since 2007. Justices Thomas and Alito have urged reconsideration of the 2007 ruling, and Kavanaugh has expressed skepticism about Clean Air Act coverage of greenhouse gases.
The Litigation Paradox
Perhaps the most ironic consequence of repealing the endangerment finding is what it could unleash in the courts. Under the 2011 American Electric Power v. Connecticut decision, the Clean Air Act bars private climate lawsuits against corporations as long as the EPA regulates emissions. Remove that regulation, and the door swings wide open for individuals and states to sue oil companies and power plants directly for their contributions to climate change.
Former California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols has stated plainly that California will not back down from its own emission standards. Amanda Lineberry of Georgetown Climate Center describes the legal path ahead as a "delicate needle to thread." The fossil fuel industry's own preferred outcome, elimination of federal climate regulation, could expose it to far greater legal liability than the framework it sought to dismantle.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will determine whether the EPA retains authority over greenhouse gas regulation or whether the United States enters an era of fragmented state-by-state climate policy. Either way, the American Petroleum Institute and automakers face uncertainty. Congressional action may ultimately be required to resolve the impasse, but in today's political climate, that prospect remains remote.
This article is based on reporting by CleanTechnica. Read the original article.
