Trump Administration's EPA Repeal Creates Legal Paradox in Climate Suits
In a significant development, the Trump administration's rollback of a key climate determination has inadvertently provided US states with new legal arguments to defend groundbreaking climate accountability laws. This comes as Vermont and New York face high-stakes challenges to their "climate superfund" policies, which require major polluters to pay for damages from past greenhouse gas emissions.
Federal Preemption Claims Undercut by EPA Action
The US Department of Justice has sought to invalidate Vermont's pioneering 2024 climate superfund law, arguing that federal law, not state regulations, governs greenhouse gas emissions. However, last month, the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the endangerment finding, a scientific determination that grants federal authority to control these pollutants. This move has created a contradiction, as environmental groups assert the administration cannot simultaneously claim federal preemption while denying its own statutory power to regulate emissions.
Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice-president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, highlighted this inconsistency, stating, "They're trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths." In a recent court filing, CLF and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont argued that if the federal government lacks authority to regulate emissions, it cannot preclude states from enacting their own climate laws.
Legal Experts Anticipate Broader Implications
Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, noted that the endangerment finding repeal is expected to play a prominent role in countering preemption claims across numerous climate lawsuits. This reasoning was echoed in a letter filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, defending both Vermont's policy and New York's similar climate superfund law passed last year.
The EPA has contended that its repeal applies only to motor vehicle emissions and that the Clean Air Act continues to preempt state greenhouse gas regulations. An agency spokesperson emphasized, "The Clean Air Act preempts states and political subdivisions from adopting or attempting to enforce emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines, full stop." However, experts argue the repeal also removes federal authority over stationary sources like power plants, weakening preemption arguments further.
High Stakes for Climate Adaptation and Accountability
Grace Oedel, executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, stressed the urgency of protecting climate superfund laws, noting that farmers are disproportionately affected by extreme weather events. "It's fair for fossil fuel companies to help pay for the cost of climate adaptation," she said. A livestreamed hearing on the DoJ's challenge to Vermont's law is scheduled for 30 March.
Modeled after the EPA's superfund program for toxic waste cleanup, climate superfund laws in Vermont and New York charge major fossil fuel companies for historical emission damages. Other states, including Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey, are considering similar policies. The repeal's impact may extend to climate accountability litigation, such as cases brought by cities against oil companies for climate deception, with the Supreme Court set to hear a related petition from energy producers.
Environmental groups and states like California and Connecticut have sued the EPA over the endangerment finding repeal, signaling ongoing legal battles. As these conflicts unfold, the interplay between federal rollbacks and state initiatives continues to shape the landscape of climate policy and justice in the United States.
