The case is titled Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, Civil Action No. 25-12249-WGY in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts (Young, J.) Judgment was entered on January 30, 2026. The Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding on February 12, 2026.
The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases had been issued on December 7, 2009, under the Obama Administration. The EPA at the time found that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution, endangering the public health or welfare. From this endangerment finding, the EPA promulgated a series of Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations on motor vehicle emission standards.
On July 23, 2025, the DOE had issued a report titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, finding that global warming estimates are overexaggerated. A five-member Climate Working Group created the report, its membership comprised of a physicist, an atmospheric scientist, a climatologist, a meteorologist, and an economics professor.
The report contradicted the well-established scientific consensus that greenhouse gases significantly impact the environment. Denying the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, the 151-page report found that increased atmospheric carbon promotes plant growth by “enhancing agricultural yields, and by neutralizing ocean alkalinity.”
On August 1, 2025, citing the DOE report, the EPA had promulgated Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Gas Vehicle Standards (90 FR 36288). This proposed rulemaking sought to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding (and its associated CAA regulations) entirely. Using the report as authority, EPA said that in light of “significant doubt” on the reliability of the 2009 endangerment finding, greenhouse gases cannot be regulated under the CAA.
The Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists on August 12, 2025 sued, seeking to preliminarily and permanently disband the Climate Working Group, save the EPA’s endangerment finding, and compel disclosure requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The complaint alleged that the Climate Working Group violated FACA by working “in secret,” “manufactur[ing] a basis to reject” the 2009 endangerment finding, and failing to provide “fairly balanced” viewpoints among its members. The suit lists as defendants DOE Secretary Christ Wright; the DOE; EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin; the EPA; and the Climate Working Group.
In a succinct 4-page declaratory judgment ruling, Judge William Young ruled that the Climate Working Group was subject to and failed to meet its requirements under FACA, granting plaintiffs’ requests for relief against DOE. The Court dismissed the EPA as a defendant, however, finding “no persuasive evidence of conduct violative of FACA” on its part.
On February 12, 2026, President Trump announced that he was “officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding,” finalizing the proposed rule. Trump described the 2009 endangerment finding as “the basis for the Green New Scam” and having “nothing to do with public health.” Zeldin, standing alongside Trump, described the move as “the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America.”
Trump and Zeldin’s action wipe out the CAA’s ability to regulate the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States: transportation. The Environmental Defense Fund claims this unregulated pollution is likely to amount to 18 billion metric tons of additional emissions between now and 2055, resulting in as many as 58,000 premature deaths and 37 million asthma attacks.
The justification for these 18 billion metric tons: supposed benefits to the auto industry. “No longer will automakers be pressured to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles,” Zeldin stated. However, the benefit of reduced regulations has drawbacks for the auto industry. For one, the decisions disrupt the predictable, stable regulations which the industry relied upon, especially the growing electric vehicle industry. Even if this de-regulation effort stands, it will put U.S. automakers further behind a global market that is rapidly electrifying to meet demand.
Zeldin also justifies the move as a control on agency power, stating “we used a very simple metric: If Congress didn’t authorize it, EPA shouldn’t be doing it.” This sentiment echoes increasing skepticism to the administrative state by Republicans, the Trump administration, and Supreme Court justices (namely, Gorsuch). As with the dismantling of NEPA guidance, this move undermines environmental efforts by attacking the EPA’s legitimacy from within.
This action already is under threat. A coalition of public health groups (including the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association) and Earthjustice have already threatened suit. More threats (and accompanying suits) are expected. The Sierra Club is also expected to file suit. “You can’t just stand by and let the EPA trash its own authority because you’re scared of a potentially negative ruling,” said senior attorney Andres Restrepo. “I think that it’s a bigger risk to do nothing.”
Despite the president’s claims that climate change is a “hoax,” decades of evidence are to the contrary. Beyond the well-established science, earlier courts had already established that the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. While lawsuits are pending and more expected, there are concerns about the likelihood of their success in the face of the conservative Supreme Court and, even if meritorious, the damage that will be done in the meantime.
Abigail George is a Legal intern at McGregor Law Group in her third year at Boston University School of Law.
