Trump EPA’s Move to Withdraw Greenhouse Gas Emissions Risk Faces Challenges
This piece discusses the Trump Environmental Protection Agency’s choice to revoke the 2009 greenhouse gas emissions risk established by the Obama administration. If executed, this would support President Trump’s claim that climate change is a “hoax.”
However, the process isn’t entirely smooth sailing. Currently, there are two new developments that could potentially hinder the Trump EPA’s plans.
The Trump EPA has proposed a move to cancel the danger finding as of August 1st, inviting public comments on two potential grounds for this retraction before the comment deadline on September 15. These grounds include the argument that the Obama EPA did not adhere to proper rule-making procedures and failed to adequately consider relevant scientific data.
In opposition, two environmental groups filed a lawsuit on August 12 in a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, which tends to lean Democratic. They managed to convince the taxpayer-funded National Academy of Sciences to expedite a review of the EPA’s proposal.
While the lawsuit lacks substantial merit, it complicates the situation further, adding unnecessary stress to the anticipated legal showdown over the withdrawal of the extinction risk findings. First, let’s consider this lawsuit.
In April, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the repeal of what are deemed illegal regulations following a recent Supreme Court ruling. The identification of the danger findings falls under this category. The order asserts that such regulations can be terminated immediately, bypassing the normal announcement and commentary processes called for by the Administrative Procedure Act, since they hold no legal weight.
As for addressing risk findings, the Clean Air Act stipulates that any lawsuit related to this must be filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This could lead to an appeal reaching the Supreme Court, where the controversial 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA would likely become a critical topic of discussion.
The Trump administration might find success here, considering a recent SCOTUS decision on West Virginia vs. EPA which demands explicit Congressional approval for significant EPA regulatory actions. The earlier Massachusetts case largely revolved around the EPA lacking such permissions, relying on a narrow majority decision to permit greenhouse gas regulation.
It’s worth noting that key justices from the original ruling have since been replaced, and the dynamics have shifted. In addition, the newly filed lawsuit claims that the Trump administration breached the Federal Advisory Board Act, allowing it to be filed in any federal district court. A judge in Massachusetts could issue an injunction at any moment, potentially halting the withdrawal or dragging the trial out for over a year.
Following this, potential appeals could head to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, known for being more favorable to Trump, but the timeline remains uncertain. Looking back, it took seven years to resolve the West Virginia case.
Interestingly, the Green Group wouldn’t have chosen the Massachusetts District Court unless they saw it as a strategic advantage. The uncertain and unpredictable nature of this scenario perhaps could have been avoided by simply retracting the extinction risk, as emphasized in Trump’s executive order earlier this year.
Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences’ reviews are quite unusual. Usually, they are contracted by agencies like the EPA, but this self-initiated and self-funding rush review is without precedent. This situation isn’t wholly unexpected, though, given how politicized the NAS has become over the years, often aligning with climate narratives.
As it stands, the NAS won’t be able to complete its report in time for the comment deadline of September 22. The committee’s public comment period won’t close until September 2, while submission materials are due by August 27.
Linking the NAS reviews to ongoing litigation, the Green Group may aim to influence judges to halt the rule-making until the NAS review is finalized. They might leverage this report to assert that the Trump administration lacks scientific basis for retracting the danger findings. NAS assessments often carry weight due to the public’s perception of its credibility.
However, if scientific discussions devolve into legal battles over risk discovery, the outcomes can become highly unpredictable. Recent Supreme Court decisions reflect a growing respect for federal agency decisions that complicate the Trump EPA’s defense against NAS reviews.
Additionally, there could be other anti-resistance lawsuits popping up in various district courts that would further muddy the waters.
All of this confusion surrounding the lawsuits seems to highlight the need to implement President Trump’s executive order from April and rescind the extinction risk findings. Well, perhaps that’s optimistic. I suppose it could all work out. But if it were up to me, I’d suggest reconsidering the current proposal—possibly to stop ongoing lawsuits, cut off NAS complications, and sidestep new legal issues. Just cancel those danger findings, and start fresh.
