Trump Administration Erases Bedrock Climate Rule, Sparking Lawsuits

The battle over the EPA's "endangerment finding" is expected to reach the Supreme Court, which is now more conservative.

Published on Feb. 14, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Trump administration has erased the EPA's "endangerment finding," a scientific principle that found greenhouse gases endanger public health by heating up the world. This sets up a legal battle that is expected to reach the Supreme Court, which is now more conservative than when the measure was established 20 years ago. Environmental groups and Democratic-led states are already lining up to sue the administration, but experts say a negative Supreme Court ruling could hamstring future efforts to reinstate climate regulations.

Why it matters

The endangerment finding was the foundation of American climate regulations, giving the government authority to regulate planet-warming emissions. Eliminating it could reshape U.S. federal climate policy and make it harder for future administrations to address climate change. The legal fight also highlights the growing role of the courts in environmental policy as the Trump administration has pushed to cut protections.

The details

The EPA argues the 1970 Clean Air Act applies only to direct, localized pollution, not greenhouse gases that spread globally. The agency also claims emissions from American vehicles play too small a role in global warming to warrant regulation, and that rules encouraging a shift to electric vehicles require explicit Congressional authorization, not just EPA action. Environmental groups say these arguments are flawed and amount to a "frontal attack" on the precedent set by the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision.

  • In 2007, the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to study whether greenhouse gases endanger public health.
  • The EPA issued the endangerment finding in 2008, but officials in the George W. Bush White House refused to act on it.
  • The endangerment finding was put into effect after Barack Obama took office in 2009.

The players

Lee Zeldin

The EPA administrator who announced the repeal of the endangerment finding, arguing the agency is "restoring the rule of law" and "grounding policy in reality."

Andres Restrepo

A senior lawyer at the Sierra Club, which is suing the Trump administration over the repeal.

Jody Freeman

Director of Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program, who says the EPA's final rule was designed to be less "crazy" and more legally defensible.

Richard Lazarus

A Harvard law professor who wrote a book on the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which established the endangerment finding.

John B. McCuskey

The Attorney General of West Virginia, who argues the endangerment finding was an unconstitutional overreach.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We're restoring the rule of law. We're grounding policy in reality. We're giving power back to the American people.”

— Lee Zeldin, EPA Administrator (The New York Times)

“You can't just stand by and let E.P.A. trash its own authority because you're scared of a potentially negative ruling' from the Supreme Court. I think that it's a bigger risk to do nothing.”

— Andres Restrepo, Senior Lawyer, Sierra Club (The New York Times)

“They're not denying these huge worldwide threats posed by climate change, by emissions around the globe. To some extent, they're simply saying that no one sector of an economy in the United States, like transportation, does enough by itself to deal with this massive problem. So we have no authority to do anything at all. That's absurd.”

— Richard Lazarus, Harvard Law Professor (The New York Times)

What’s next

The first legal challenges to the EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has already upheld the finding in the past. If the D.C. Circuit rules against the EPA, the case is expected to ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

The takeaway

The Trump administration's move to eliminate the EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health sets up a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape federal climate policy for years to come. The outcome will depend heavily on the more conservative Supreme Court, which could limit the government's ability to regulate emissions and make it harder for future administrations to address climate change.