A Conversation about the Endangerment Finding Rescission

A couple of lawyers and a couple of scribes discuss the legal challenges to come.

On Friday afternoon I took a break from reading the Supreme Court's tariff ruling to talk about the EPA's final rule rescinding the "endangerment finding," which serves as the basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, on Andrew Revkin's "Sustain What" podcast. We were joined by environmental attorney Sean Donohue (who will be among those challenging the EPA's final rule) and Jean Chemnick of E&E News/Politico.

It was a fun discussion which highlighted some of the legal issues that will arise as courts (first the D.C. Circuit and then, some expect, the Supreme Court) consider the question, even if Sean Donohue was somewhat constrained in what he could say given the pending litigation. Here's a video:

The EPA's final rule, as published in the Federal Register, is here. Additional materials and supporting documents are available on the EPA website here. And the first petition for review of the rescission filed in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of multiple environmentalist, public health, and other public interest organizations is here. (And, yes, Donohue is one of the attorneys listed.)

For more background on the legal issues and what may be in store, here are some of my posts on the subject:

• Can the EPA Rescind the Endangerment Finding? Should It Even Try?, May 10, 2025;
• Can the EPA Finesse the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding?, May 16, 2025;
• NYT: EPA Embarking on Endangerment Finding Fool's Errand, July 23, 2025;
• Why Trying to Undo the Endangerment Finding Is A High-Risk (and Low-Reward) Deregulatory Strategy, September 15, 2025.
• Is This the End of Endangerment?, Feb. 11, 2026.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

So there will be a court case to determine if an agency can change its own rules?
Seriously?

[LexAquilia]

President Trump couldn't rescind an Obama EO, DACA.

We've entered a new era of jurisprudence, and it has nothing to do with the Rule of Law.

[MollyGodiva]

Yes. The APA prohibits agencies from changing rules in a manner that is arbitrary or capricious. The science of climate change due to greenhouse gases is very well established. The EPA's change had zero scientific basis.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how this change is any more arbitrary than the change it reverses. And frankly, if the law actually does genuinely mandate economically damaging actions to achieve results so tiny they're impossible to measure, does it even satisfy rational basis?

[Sarcastr0]

Yup, no process here!
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/endangermentfinding_timeline.pdf

if the law actually does genuinely mandate economically damaging actions to achieve results so tiny they're impossible to measure
I can't tell if you're saying we should be come free riders, or just denying there's been any impact.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat5982

'Does Brett and his outlier views agree' is not the test for rational basis.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say there was no process behind the original endangerment finding, I said it was no less arbitrary.

We don't even know whether global warming is net harmful! What happens to your endangerment if what's being averted is benefit, not harm?

[MollyGodiva]

Let me lay this out: Rules/findings based on decades of science = not arbitrary. Rescinding Rules/findings because of pure politics with zero scientific basis = arbitrary.

[LexAquilia]

Do you think there is any science at all that disputes the global warming thesis?

Anywhere at all?

[Spinach Chin]

"An arbitrarily created government agency can't arbitrarily change an arbitrarily created rule" is peak gay retard prog-think.

[Spinach Chin]

Please produce the scientific proof that the Endangerment Finding has had a significant impact on climate change.