The Trump EPA has done something historic. It repealed the 2009 endangerment finding, the legal linchpin behind nearly two decades of costly climate regulation that was never authorized by Congress. The repeal is legally sound, long overdue, and directly in line with what the American people voted for. This repeal will save average Americans a lot of money every year and give us more choices just about everywhere.
So why is the Department of Justice making arguments in federal court that could blow it up?
A conservative policy analyst recently flagged a serious problem. In May, DOJ filed a brief in Suncor v. Boulder, a climate liability case heading to the Supreme Court. In that brief, DOJ argued that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA primary authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that local governments like Boulder, Colorado, cannot sue fossil fuel companies over climate change because federal law already covers the field.
That argument may sound reasonable in isolation. But it directly contradicts the legal foundation for the repeal of the EPA’s endangerment finding.
The repeal rests on a clear and correct legal argument: EPA never had statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases for climate purposes in the first place. Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 did not order the agency to regulate GHGs. It only said EPA could not arbitrarily refuse to consider whether greenhouse gases endanger public health. That was a permission slip, not a congressional command.
The Obama administration treated it as a mandate. The 2009 endangerment finding followed, and with it an avalanche of expensive rules covering power plants, vehicles, and the broader economy. None of it was authorized by a vote in Congress. All of it drove up the cost of energy and everything that depends on it.
The Trump EPA is correcting that overreach. The legal case is strong. The Clean Air Act was written to address local and regional air pollution, smog, soot, and acid rain. Greenhouse gases are global and well-mixed, with no local exposure pathway. They do not fit the statutory definition.
The Supreme Court reinforced this in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, applying the major questions doctrine: when an agency claims authority over decisions of vast economic and social significance, Congress must have clearly granted that power. Reshaping the entire American energy and transportation economies through administrative rulemaking requires explicit legislative authorization that never existed.
The futility argument makes the case even stronger. EPA’s own modeling shows that eliminating every greenhouse gas emission from every American vehicle would reduce global temperatures by 0.037 degrees Celsius by 2100. Less than natural variability and temperature measurement uncertainties. Meanwhile, China and India keep building coal plants. Congress never intended EPA to impose trillions in costs for a result that cannot be measured.
That is a winning legal argument. Which is exactly why the DOJ brief is so troubling.
When DOJ tells the Supreme Court that the Clean Air Act gives EPA primary authority over greenhouse gas regulation, it is handing opponents of the endangerment repeal a loaded weapon. Every federal judge who hears a challenge to the repeal will see that brief. Plaintiff attorneys will wave it in court. It creates the appearance of an administration that cannot keep its legal story straight.
The question worth asking is whether this is careless coordination or something worse. Career DOJ attorneys, many of whom built their careers advancing the regulatory state, are still occupying key positions. It would not be the first time that a policy agenda was quietly undermined from within through legal filings, strategic delays, or arguments that look neutral but do real damage.
This administration has worked hard to dismantle regulatory overreach that was never democratically authorized. That work deserves a unified legal defense, not conflicting signals from different agencies.
WHEN THE WORLD CUP IS A CLIMATE STORY, JOURNALISM LOSES THE PLOT
Three things need to happen now. EPA must finalize the power plant rule repeals without further delay. Every month of delay gives opponents more time to sharpen their litigation strategy. DOJ and EPA need to formally coordinate so that their legal arguments align across all active cases. And Congress should act to settle the question permanently: sweeping climate regulation requires explicit legislative authorization, not a judicial inference from a 2007 ruling that was never meant to carry that weight.
The left will litigate every step of this. The administration holds a stronger hand than its opponents. But that advantage disappears fast if the right hand does not know what the left hand is filing.
Frank Lasee is the President of Truth in Energy and Climate.