Orlando Delogu is a lawyer and a Portland resident.
In 2006, Massachusetts and 11 other states, along with several local governments and national environmental organizations, sued in federal court asserting that the EPA “… had abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate the emission of … greenhouse gases …”
The plaintiffs failed at the District Court and Court of Appeals level, but the Supreme Court reversed the lower court holdings and remanded the case to the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases endangered the environment and/or human life.
The Supreme Court’s holding made several important determinations. First, that plaintiffs have standing (a right) to bring this suit. Second, greenhouse gases are air pollutants. Third, the EPA is not at liberty to ignore, to refuse to determine whether greenhouse gases “endanger” the environment and/or human life. Fourth, upon a finding of “endangerment” the EPA is required to fashion appropriate regulations to mitigate the harms these air pollutants give rise to.
In 2009, responding to the Supreme Court’s holding, EPA scientists determined that six greenhouse gases emanating from automobiles/trucks (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) “endangered” the environment and/or human life of current and future generations. This finding led to new automobile exhaust regulations.
Following this model EPA scientists in 2015 and 2016 determined that air pollutants from new, modified and reconstructed electric utility generating units, oil and gas modification/refining facilities and facilities building all forms of aircraft similarly “endangered” the environment and/or human life.
Regulatory measures to mitigate the harms arising in these settings have been fashioned.
The Clean Air Act is quite clear. The Act values the environment that supports all life on Earth, particularly human life. But regulations limiting an air pollutant (and giving rise to costs associated with regulation) may not be imposed on a corporation unless/until EPA scientists determine that a pollutant “endangers” the environment and/or human life.
President Trump, unhappy with imposing air pollution control costs on corporations, in a January 2025 executive order directed his hand-picked head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, to reexamine the “endangerment” rationale of the EPA with an eye to rescinding it.
As far back as 2012, Mr. Trump consistently characterized global warming and the EPA’s focus on “endangerment” as a “hoax.” On Feb. 12, 2026, President Trump and Mr. Zeldin (neither of whom have a scientific background) simply announced that they were erasing (“poof,” gone!) the EPA’s 2009 scientific finding that six greenhouse gases “endanger” human health and the environment.
They then argue that given the wording of the CAA, EPA regulation of the six named air pollutants is not legally permitted, though these pollutants are dangerously heating the planet.
State governments and national environmental organizations have appealed the Trump/Zeldin order.
The order ignores the 2007 Supreme Court holding and, further, allows the president (via executive order) to negate any/all EPA air pollution controls he is opposed to, notwithstanding the contrary intent of Congress and the danger this poses.
There is no history of executive orders being used to overturn scientific findings that are widely (indeed, globally) accepted.
In sum, without offering any scientific data contradicting EPA’s 2009 data, President Trump and Mr. Zeldin have annulled the EPA’s 2009 scientific findings, thus crippling the Clean Air Act.
They have put countless lives at risk. They have done so to protect auto industry corporate interests and profits. But unless stopped by the courts they will extend this annulment tactic to benefit public utility, oil and gas and aircraft industry corporations. In my view these actions are unprincipled and legally unsupportable.