Lawsuit: EPA revoking greenhouse gas finding risks “thousands of avoidable deaths”

A coalition challenges the EPA

A coalition of more than a dozen environmental and health organizations filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday to block the repeal of a 17-year-old climate rule. The legal challenge targets the EPA’s decision to rescind its "endangerment finding," the foundational document that allows the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The plaintiffs filed the petition in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They argue the agency is abandoning its legal mandate to protect public health by ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change. This move also eliminates specific requirements that controlled emissions for new cars and trucks.

The list of groups challenging the EPA includes several of the most prominent advocacy organizations in the country. These organizations represent millions of members who are directly impacted by air quality and climate policy:

• American Public Health Association
• American Lung Association
• Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
• Clean Air Council
• Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
• Sierra Club
• Union of Concerned Scientists

Meredith Hankins, legal director for federal climate at the NRDC, described the situation as a direct threat to federal climate action. She stated that undercutting the government’s ability to tackle the largest source of climate pollution is a deadly serious matter. The groups are urging the court to return to the previous regulatory status quo.

Deregulating the American auto industry

The EPA’s final rule summary characterizes this repeal as the single largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States. Agency officials claim the move will save Americans more than $1.3 trillion by the year 2055. This economic forecast assumes that carmakers will pass savings directly to consumers once they no longer have to meet strict emissions and electric vehicle mandates.

The Trump administration has framed the repeal as a victory for "consumer choice" over what it calls "climate change zealotry." A fact sheet released alongside the final rule argues that expensive EV mandates were strangling the American auto industry. The agency claims that removing these barriers will make traditional internal combustion vehicles more affordable for the average family.

Donald Trump has frequently criticized climate science on public platforms. During a recent cold snap, he questioned the reality of global warming on Truth Social. This rhetoric matches the current EPA’s stance, which increasingly mirrors the interests of the fossil fuel industry over environmental protections.

The groups suing the agency argue that the EPA attempted to muddy the waters of climate science before this repeal. The administration previously formed a working group of climate contrarians to challenge established data. Although that group was later disbanded, the lawsuit claims the agency continues to ignore a mountain of evidence regarding floods, droughts, and wildfires.

The trillion dollar economic debate

Critics of the repeal argue that the EPA’s $1.3 trillion savings estimate is misleading and incomplete. Research published by The Guardian suggests that any savings from cheaper vehicle prices will be entirely offset by other rising costs. Consumers will likely face $1.4 trillion in additional expenses related to fuel purchases, vehicle repairs, and insurance premiums.

The lawsuit alleges that the EPA’s economic analysis intentionally ignores the massive costs associated with public health. David Pettit, an attorney at the CBD’s Climate Law Institute, claims the agency is attempting to sway consumers without disclosing the true financial burden. He argues that only the oil industry stands to profit from vehicles that guzzle and pollute more.

The health impacts of increased pollution represent a significant portion of the projected economic loss. Plaintiffs provided the court with data showing that unchecked pollution leads to thousands of avoidable deaths and increased hospitalizations. These costs are often borne by taxpayers and individual families rather than the industries responsible for the emissions.

The following factors contribute to the $1.4 trillion in projected costs cited by critics:

• Increased fuel consumption from less efficient engines
• Higher vehicle maintenance and repair requirements
• Rising insurance premiums due to climate-related disasters
• Increased traffic congestion and noise pollution
• Public health expenditures for respiratory and chronic illnesses

A high stakes legal gamble

The decision to sue the EPA carries significant legal risks for environmental advocates. By bringing this case to court, they risk a scenario where a judge could reverse the 2009 Supreme Court ruling. That original ruling required the EPA to conduct an endangerment analysis and regulate any pollution found to harm public health.

The Trump administration appears to be intentionally seeking a Supreme Court showdown. The current court is significantly more conservative than the one that ruled on the issue in 2009. Government lawyers hope the justices will now read the Clean Air Act more narrowly, stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases entirely.

William Piermattei, managing director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland, believes the risk is necessary. He told The New York Times that environmentalists had no choice but to file the lawsuit. Failing to challenge the repeal would be an admission that the government should not regulate greenhouse gases at all.

The EPA is currently using the "major questions" doctrine to defend its actions. This legal theory suggests that agencies cannot make decisions with significant political and economic implications without explicit permission from Congress. The EPA now argues that the Clean Air Act does not provide the specific statutory authority needed to set motor vehicle standards based on global climate concerns.

Public health and future risks

The EPA has officially labeled evidence of climate change as out of scope for this specific legal debate. The agency claims it is not repealing the scientific basis of the finding, but rather challenging its own authority to act on it. This distinction could determine whether the courts uphold the 2009 precedent or strike it down.

Hana Vizcarra, a senior lawyer at Earthjustice, argues that this action flips the EPA’s mission on its head. She stated that the agency is abandoning its core mandate to protect human health to boost polluting industries. If the court sides with the EPA, future administrations may find it nearly impossible to reinstate climate protections without new legislation from Congress.

The impact of this decision will fall most heavily on vulnerable populations. Health professionals warn that the repeal will lead to direct harm for children, older adults, and those with chronic illnesses. These consequences will be felt across all demographics, regardless of income or geographic location.

Physicians for Social Responsibility board president Ankush Bansal warned that the decision goes against the testimony of countless scientists. He noted that the increased exposure to harmful pollutants will make the country sicker and less prosperous for generations. The coalition remains confident that the courts will eventually recognize the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the original endangerment finding.

The Sierra Club has vowed to continue the fight, noting that their litigation in the early 2000s led to the original protections. Joanne Spalding, director of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, called the rollback blatantly unlawful. She stated that the administration’s blind allegiance to the fossil fuel industry will ultimately fail in the face of public health necessity.