**
The recent decision by the Trump administration to revoke the endangerment finding has stirred significant debate, with legal experts suggesting that this move may not be the boon for the fossil fuel industry that many anticipated. Instead, it could pave the way for increased litigation and renewed climate accountability efforts at local and state levels.
A Strategic Retreat from Climate Regulation
Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Donald Trump’s direction, formalised the repeal of the endangerment finding—a critical 2009 ruling that recognised greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and welfare. This rollback effectively removes federal restrictions on emissions from vehicles and is poised to extend to other pollution sources as well.
Critics argue that this decision was primarily aimed at benefitting oil companies, which have historically supported Trump’s political campaigns. However, in a surprising twist, the removal of this regulatory framework could actually undermine the legal protections that the fossil fuel industry has relied upon to fend off climate-related lawsuits across the United States.
Legal Ramifications and Emerging Challenges
The future of the fossil fuel industry’s legal protections is now under scrutiny, especially as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case involving a climate lawsuit from Boulder, Colorado. This case could set a precedent that challenges the existing arguments used by oil companies to dismiss similar lawsuits, which have often claimed that federal law, particularly the Clean Air Act, pre-empts state-level climate actions.
Pat Parenteau, a prominent environmental law scholar at Vermont Law School, expressed scepticism about how oil companies can continue to assert their defence against climate lawsuits following the repeal. “I don’t see how oil companies can, with a straight face, any longer make that argument,” he stated.
Historically, the Supreme Court has favoured a hands-off approach to climate emissions, insisting that such regulations fall under the purview of the EPA. However, with the federal government stepping back from regulating greenhouse gases, there is now an argument that no overarching federal law exists to preclude state efforts to control emissions.
The Ripple Effect Across the Industry
Public nuisance lawsuits—claims asserting that companies are responsible for public health and safety harms—could see a resurgence due to the endangerment finding’s rescission. Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, highlighted that these lawsuits could flourish as a result of the weakened federal stance on climate emissions.
The implications of this shift are compounded by the fact that the Trump administration has already challenged state-level climate superfund policies in New York and Vermont. With the Clean Air Act’s legal authority being called into question, it could significantly alter the landscape for climate accountability.
Andres Restrepo, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club, noted that many companies are increasingly anxious about the potential consequences of the repeal. “There is really good evidence of the fact that industry is nervous about the EPA moving forward with us,” he said.
The Bigger Picture: Industry Response and Future Actions
In light of these legal uncertainties, fossil fuel companies are actively lobbying for broader protections against climate litigation. Recent legislative efforts in several states indicate a push to shield the industry from climate-related lawsuits, reflecting a growing sentiment of vulnerability among oil companies.
Delta Merner, a scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the ambiguity surrounding regulation is “by design,” allowing the fossil fuel industry time to prepare its legal defences. Meanwhile, the EPA maintains that the Clean Air Act still pre-empts state emissions regulations; however, the agency’s recent actions have muddied this assertion, leading to questions about its validity.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the Boulder climate lawsuit will be a pivotal moment, potentially clarifying the relationship between federal law and state-level climate initiatives. If the Court rules in favour of the oil companies, it may undermine not just the Boulder case but also other critical climate accountability efforts.
Why it Matters
The repeal of the endangerment finding signifies a crucial moment in the ongoing battle against climate change. While it may have been intended as a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, it could inadvertently dismantle the legal frameworks that protect it from accountability. As communities increasingly seek to hold oil companies responsible for their contributions to climate change, this complexity in the legal landscape could lead to more innovative and aggressive litigation strategies at the state and local levels. The implications of this ongoing struggle are profound, as they will shape the future of environmental governance and corporate responsibility in the face of a deepening climate crisis.
