On September 22, Landmark filed an extensive comment in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding.” If the Trump Administration’s EPA is successful in rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding—a classic example of regulatory overreach—EPA’s regulatory framework will better align with recent Supreme Court decisions, rein in excessive regulation, and lower costs for consumers.¹

EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding (“the Finding”) has served as the legal determinant for burdensome and expansive climate regulation. The rescission of the Finding would reflect a necessary recalibration of administrative power and ensure that EPA’s regulatory regime aligns with the statutory authority provided in the Clean Air Act (CAA).²

Following the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that greenhouse gases (GHGs) could be interpreted as “air pollutants,” the Obama Administration’s EPA issued the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The Finding concluded that GHG emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, thereby establishing the necessary legal obligation for EPA to regulate them. This decision led to a bureaucratic expansion of authority and a series of regulatory actions of significant economic consequence.³

This inclusive definition of “air pollutants” has led to expansive regulation beyond the explicit authority granted by Congress, which has negatively impacted economic growth while doing little to protect the environment. In accordance with the 2009 Finding, EPA promulgated a series of regulations to update auto and energy-generating emission standards—for instance, the “Tailpipe Rule,” which sets GHG limits on cars and light trucks. These regulations imposed substantial compliance costs across energy, manufacturing, and transportation, disproportionately burdening small businesses and deterring industrial investment.⁴

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA cemented the “major questions doctrine,” holding that agencies may not issue regulations with vast economic or political consequences without clear authorization from Congress. Under this doctrine, the 2009 Finding should be rescinded because it lacks the necessary clear legislative underpinning.⁵

The EPA’s reliance on statutory ambiguity drew support from the now-overturned Chevron doctrine. In 1984, the Supreme Court held that when congressional intent is unclear, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes. In 2024, the Supreme Court reversed course in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, restoring the judiciary’s role in independently assessing whether agency actions are consistent with the law. In light of Loper Bright, the Endangerment Finding’s reliance on ambiguity in the CAA is untenable.⁶

Accordingly, the 2009 Endangerment Finding should be rescinded. Its sweeping regulatory consequences are grounded in vague statutory provisions and exceed the authority Congress intended to delegate to EPA. The Finding cannot stand without an explicit congressional mandate, which it lacks.⁷

Read Landmark’s submission here

References

1. Landmark’s September 22 comment supporting EPA’s reconsideration. ↩︎
2. Clean Air Act context for greenhouse-gas regulation and the 2009 Endangerment Finding. ↩︎
3. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) and EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding. ↩︎
4. EPA greenhouse-gas standards for mobile sources (“Tailpipe Rule”) and related regulatory costs. ↩︎
5. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the major questions doctrine. ↩︎
6. Chevron (1984) deference and its reversal in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024). ↩︎
7. Conclusion and rationale for rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. ↩︎