The Trump administration’s February 2026 repeal of the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding has drawn a wave of lawsuits now consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Petitioners include public health and environmental groups, eighteen young people from ten states, the electric vehicle industry’s main trade association, the Service Employees International Union, 23 Democratic state attorneys general along with Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a coalition of Alaska Native tribes and environmental organizations. Briefing has not begun and oral argument has not been scheduled as of mid-2026.1Climate Policy Radar. American Public Health Association v. EPA
What the EPA Repealed
The final rule, published February 18, 2026, rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and repealed every federal greenhouse gas emission standard for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines going back to model year 2012. It also freed manufacturers from any obligation to measure, control, or report greenhouse gas emissions, including for vehicles already produced. Regulations covering traditional air pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides were left in place.2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Rule Rescission of Greenhouse Gas Endangerment
The EPA argued that Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize regulation of greenhouse gases because the statutory term “air pollution” refers only to local or regional exposure, not global atmospheric effects. The agency also said U.S. vehicle emissions have a negligible effect on global temperature and cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022) to argue that the 2009 finding lacked clear Congressional authorization.3Georgetown Environmental Law Review. After EPAs Repeal of the Endangerment Finding4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding
Who Filed Suit
Public Health and Environmental Groups
Petitions began arriving the same day the rule was published. In American Public Health Association v. EPA (No. 26-1037), seventeen organizations filed a joint challenge on February 18, 2026, represented by Earthjustice, the Clean Air Task Force, and other legal teams. The coalition includes the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Sierra Club, NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, and Union of Concerned Scientists.5Earthjustice. Earthjustice and Partners Sue EPA for Illegal Repeal of Climate Protections6NRDC. NRDC Coalition Sue Endangerment Rollback Climate Protections
Youth Petitioners
Also on February 18, eighteen young people from ten states filed a separate petition through Our Children’s Trust. Venner v. EPA (No. 26-1038) raises constitutional claims, alleging the repeal violates the petitioners’ Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty by locking in greenhouse gas pollution, and their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by burdening cultural and spiritual practices tied to a livable environment. Petitioners include students and Tribal youth from Alaska, Hawai’i, Montana, and Pennsylvania, among other states.7Our Children’s Trust. Venner v. EPA
On May 20, 2026, the youth petitioners filed a motion for a stay of the repeal rule, arguing that without one, automakers would make long-term fleet decisions locking in gas-powered vehicle production for at least fifteen years. They are the only petitioners who have formally requested a stay from both the EPA and the court.7Our Children’s Trust. Venner v. EPA
The Electric Vehicle Industry
On February 20, 2026, the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a trade group representing electric vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, filed Zero Emission Transportation Association v. EPA (No. 26-1039), challenging the repeal under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Clean Air Act.8Climate Case Chart. Business Climate Initiative Action v. EPA ZETA executive director Albert Gore said the repeal creates “huge risk and uncertainty” for manufacturers, forces companies to navigate a “complicated patchwork of state regulations,” and exposes them to tort litigation.9ZETA. Rescinding the Endangerment Finding Creates Unnecessary Risk for Businesses
Service Workers
On March 12, 2026, the Service Employees International Union, representing two million workers, filed a petition through Democracy Forward. The union argued the rescission ignores overwhelming scientific evidence about climate health risks and violates the precedent set by Massachusetts v. EPA.10Democracy Forward. Workers Sue to Stop Trump-Vance Administrations Plan to Gut EPAs Climate Protections
State Attorneys General
All 23 states with Democratic attorneys general, plus Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a petition for review in March 2026 led by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. Democratic-leaning cities and counties in Ohio, California, Colorado, New York, and Washington also joined Massachusetts v. EPA (No. 26-1061).11Spotlight PA. EPA Lawsuit Greenhouse Gas Trump Rollback States Federal Government California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a separate challenge asserting the EPA has an “affirmative duty to protect public health and welfare from air pollutants, including greenhouse gases.”12Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. California Is Taking Donald Trump to Court
Alaska Native Tribes and a Second Environmental Coalition
On April 8, 2026, a second wave of petitions arrived in Alaska Institute for Justice v. EPA (No. 26-1083). Indigenous communities including the Chinik Eskimo Community, Native Village of Kwinhagak, and Native Village of Nunapitchuk joined groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Food & Water Watch.13Earthjustice. Environmental Groups Sue EPA for Illegal Repeal of Climate Protections Sheryl Musgrove of the Alaska Institute for Justice described climate change as an “existential threat to Alaska’s rural communities and Tribes,” citing permafrost thaw, erosion, and increasingly life-threatening storms.14ICLG. Environmental Groups and Indigenous Tribes Sue EPA Over Repeal of Climate Finding
The Legal Arguments Against the Repeal
Although the petitioners come from different backgrounds, their arguments substantially overlap.
The repeal conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. Challengers argue the EPA’s position directly contradicts Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), in which the Court held that greenhouse gases are “unambiguously” air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and rejected the argument that U.S. emissions were too small to matter.
The statute’s own text covers climate. Section 302(h) of the Clean Air Act explicitly defines “welfare” to include “climate,” which opponents say undermines the EPA’s claim that the statute was never meant to reach greenhouse gases.
The major questions doctrine has been misapplied. Plaintiffs contend West Virginia v. EPA addressed the scope of specific regulatory mechanisms, not whether the agency has authority to regulate greenhouse gases at all.
The rulemaking was procedurally defective. In April 2026 petitions for administrative reconsideration, 24 state attorneys general argued the final rule relied on “new methodologies, data, inputs, and assumptions” that appeared after the public comment period closed, denying the public a chance to weigh in on the actual basis for the decision.15Columbia Law Review. The Legal Case Against EPA: The Rescission of the Endangerment Finding16State Impact Center. Twenty-Four AGs Asked EPA to Reconsider Its Rescission of the Endangerment Finding
A related lawsuit outside the consolidated case has already dented one of the EPA’s supporting materials. In Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright, decided January 30, 2026, Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled that the Department of Energy’s five-member “Climate Working Group,” whose report the EPA cited 22 times in its proposal, was an unlawful federal advisory committee whose Federal Advisory Committee Act violations were “established as a matter of law.” The judge declined to strike the report from the federal record, but disclosed emails show EPA officials had asked the DOE for a “DOE-branded” document to support the rulemaking.17Environmental Defense Fund. Court Rules Trump Administrations Secret Climate Working Group Violated Federal Law
Who Is Defending the Repeal
Not every state opposes the rescission. On March 6, 2026, West Virginia, Kentucky, and 23 other states moved to intervene as respondents supporting the EPA. The intervenors are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.18Carbon Pulse. State Motion to Intervene in Case No. 26-1037 They argue they have a “direct and unique interest” in the case because of the economic costs of vehicle emission standards, and that federal respondents alone would not adequately represent their position because states are “in a better position to counter anticipated arguments from other States about the consequences of the Final Rule and climate change.”19Climate Case Chart. American Public Health Association v. EPA
Where the Case Stands
The D.C. Circuit has consolidated the petitions and issued an initial scheduling order, but no merits briefing schedule has been set and oral argument has not been scheduled.1Climate Policy Radar. American Public Health Association v. EPA19Climate Case Chart. American Public Health Association v. EPA16State Impact Center. Twenty-Four AGs Asked EPA to Reconsider Its Rescission of the Endangerment Finding
As of late May 2026, the youth petitioners in Venner were awaiting a response from the EPA and intervenor respondents on their stay motion.7Our Children’s Trust. Venner v. EPA The consolidated case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court regardless of how the D.C. Circuit rules.20NCEL. The Endangerment Finding Repeal: Implications for States
What Else the Repeal Reaches
The lawsuits are aimed at the vehicle rule, but the finding’s reach is broader. The Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program has identified power plant carbon standards and methane rules for oil and gas facilities as regulations that rely on analogous findings and “will likely follow suit” toward rescission. The EPA had already proposed repealing its CO2 standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants in June 2025.21Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program. Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding Tracker22NRDC. EPA Endangerment Finding Fact Sheet
The California vehicle emissions waiver sits in a separate track. As of June 2026, the EPA had not formally revoked California’s Section 209 waiver for greenhouse gas vehicle standards, but the agency transmitted four California waiver rules to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act. Congress had already used that mechanism to repeal three other California waivers in spring 2025.23DieselNet. EPA California Waiver Actions
State climate programs may be relatively insulated. Legal analysis suggests the repeal does not affect state authority to regulate stationary sources like power plants, because of the Clean Air Act’s savings clause, meaning state cap-and-trade programs remain intact. Virginia has legislation moving to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and states including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have introduced bills to regulate transportation emissions through indirect source rules. Removing federal climate regulation could also aid climate lawsuits against oil companies, because a common defense — that Congress has occupied the field of emissions regulation through the EPA — would lose its foundation.24Legal Planet. What Happens to State Regulation if the Endangerment Findings Are Gone20NCEL. The Endangerment Finding Repeal: Implications for States