L4GG Condemns EPA’s Final Repeal of the Endangerment Finding

WASHINGTON — Following today’s final action by the Environmental Protection Agency repealing the 2009 endangerment finding, Jillian Blanchard, Vice President of Climate Change & Environmental Justice at Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), issued the following statement:

“By finalizing the repeal of the endangerment finding, the EPA has formally declared its loyalty to polluters over people. This decision rips out the scientific and legal foundation that has protected Americans from dangerous climate pollution for more than a decade, and it does so by ignoring decades of peer-reviewed science, sidelining expert consensus, and fast-tracking a change with enormous consequences for public health. 

“Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1)) clearly states that the EPA Administrator must regulate any air pollutant that can “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Courts have been clear for years: the Clean Air Act requires EPA to follow the science and regulate climate pollution that endangers human health and welfare. This rule violates both the law and reality, and it will be challenged accordingly.  “Greenhouse gases don’t stop endangering people because an administration says they don’t. Heat waves, floods, wildfires, and toxic air will continue to harm communities whether EPA acknowledges the science or not.

“What makes this move especially egregious is the process itself. EPA rushed this rule through on an artificially short timeline, relied on discredited pseudoscience from a politicized ‘Climate Working Group,’ and dismissed thousands of public comments, claiming any related to climate science  were ‘out of scope.’ That is the definition of arbitrary and capricious decision-making and a failure to observe due process. 

“Communities, states, and advocates, including Lawyers for God Government, will continue to call for administrative reconsideration and push back against this repeal in the courts. This fight is far from over.”

Ryan Hathaway, L4GG’s Director of Environment and Climate Justice and former Director for Environmental Justice under Biden, added the following:

“The EPA can’t just erase the endangerment finding with the stroke of a pen. By 2009, the science was unequivocal: greenhouse gases endanger public health. The Endangerment finding wasn’t political; it was the culmination of decades of measurement, modeling, and global consensus. To reverse it now would not only ignore overwhelming scientific evidence, but unravel one of the rare moments where policy caught up to facts. It would be like deciding, years after seatbelts saved millions of lives, that maybe we never needed them. It’s reckless, ignorant, irresponsible, and will hurt people. We are not going to stand for it.”

If you’d like to connect with Jillian or Ryan to discuss the legal and environmental stakes of this unprecedented rollback, and why courts are likely to view this proposal as unlawful, we’d be happy to arrange an interview.

# # #

Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) is a nonprofit organization that harnesses the power of 125,000 lawyers, law students, and advocates in the fight for justice. We identify where lawyers can make the greatest impact and mobilize them to defend democracy and the rule of law, protect civil and human rights, and advance environmental justice through coordinated legal action and advocacy efforts that create meaningful change for all Americans.

L4GG Files Amicus Brief Defending $20 Billion Clean Energy Fund From Trump Administration Power Grab

WASHINGTON — Today, Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) filed an amicus brief as counsel for 40 U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, urging the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear a case over the Trump administration’s cancellation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).

The brief argues that the Environmental Protection Agency’s termination of $20 billion in Congressionally mandated clean energy grants, and attempt to claw back already-disbursed funds, is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.

““Congress created, funded, and directed EPA to deliver this money to build clean energy projects that cut pollution and lower energy bills,” said Jillian Blanchard, Vice President of Climate Change & Environmental Justice at L4GG. “EPA cannot simply undo the law by executive fiat. That’s a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.””

The brief, which you can read in full here, argues:

• Congress has the exclusive “power of the purse.” Under the Appropriations and Spending Clauses, only Congress decides how federal funds are allocated.

• EPA’s termination was a power grab. By nullifying programs after money had already been awarded and transferred, the administration usurped Congress’s authority.

• The panel’s decision rewrites precedent. By leaning on a misreading of Dalton v. Specter, the panel ignored clear Supreme Court rulings (Train v. New York, Clinton v. New York) that prohibit the executive branch from refusing to spend funds Congress appropriated.

• If allowed to stand, the ruling creates a de facto line-item veto. Any future administration could cancel duly authorized programs and seize funds Congress already appropriated, undermining democracy and destabilizing community investments.

““This is not a routine contract dispute—it is a constitutional power grab,” said Gary DiBianco, counsel at L4GG’s Pro Bono Litigation Corps. “If the executive can claw back billions that Congress has already spent, then Congress’s power of the purse is deemed insignificant.””

The GGRF was created by the Inflation Reduction Act to invest nearly $20 billion in projects that reduce pollution, lower energy costs, and build resilience in disadvantaged communities. Hundreds of organizations have already begun planning and hiring around these funds, which are now in jeopardy. If you’re interested in learning more about some of those communities and projects impacted, we’d be happy to potentially arrange interviews.

---

L4GG is proud to take on this urgent case through our Pro Bono Litigation Corps, which fights for democracy and human rights when traditional pro bono models face unprecedented constraints.

Chevron Deference on Trial at SCOTUS: Impact Survey for Legal Practitioners

A Landmark Case

In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a pivotal case that could redefine administrative law by potentially overturning Chevron deference. Chevron deference, established in 1984, requires courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes, recognizing the agency's expertise. This principle has been instrumental in maintaining consistent regulatory practices across various sectors.

The implications of this case extend beyond administrative law. A decision against Chevron deference could significantly impact federal regulatory authority in areas such as environmental protection, food and drug safety, employment, consumer protection, and immigration. It would shift more power to the judiciary, allowing courts to override agency interpretations and create a less predictable regulatory environment.

Understanding the Case: A Special L4GG Explainer

To help you grasp the complexities of this case and its potential consequences, L4GG has prepared an explainer document. This guide provides a clear understanding of the issues at stake, the arguments presented, and the broader significance of the Supreme Court's decision for regulatory practices in the United States.

Participate in Our Impact Survey

We are reaching out to our community of legal practitioners to gather insights on how the potential ruling might affect your practice. Please take this quick survey - your feedback is crucial in helping us understand how we can best support you in navigating the post-ruling landscape.

Why Your Input Matters

The outcome of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could reshape the legal landscape in which we operate. Whether you specialize in administrative law, environmental law, healthcare, or any field subject to federal regulation, the ramifications of this decision could be profound. By participating in our survey, you will help L4GG prepare for the challenges ahead and ensure we can effectively mobilize our community in response to this landmark ruling.

We hope you will take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us. Together, we can stand ready to address the potential upheaval in administrative law and continue our fight for justice and regulatory stability.