A coalition of health and environmental organizations has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the agency’s recent decision to revoke the landmark “endangerment finding” — the legal determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. The case was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on 18 February 2026.
The lawsuit names the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin as defendants and was brought by organizations including the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, among others. Legal support is being provided by Earthjustice and the Clean Air Task Force.
“This repeal marks a complete dereliction of the agency’s mission to protect people’s health,” said Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the groups behind the suit. “It is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and directly threatens public health.”
What the Endangerment Finding Did
The endangerment finding, first issued in 2009, underpinned nearly all U.S. federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. It allowed the EPA to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources by declaring that heat-trapping pollution harms public health and welfare. The rollback effectively removes the legal foundation for these regulations.
According to plaintiffs, the repeal could increase air pollution, worsen climate-related health risks, and undermine environmental justice, especially for vulnerable communities already disproportionately affected by pollution.
Trump and Zeldin Defend the Repeal
Former President Donald Trump hailed the repeal as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history,” while Administrator Zeldin said previous administrations had used the endangerment finding to push a “leftwing wishlist of costly climate policies.”
An EPA spokesperson described the rollback as following the law and ending what they called the “bogus overreach of agenda-driven climate zealots.” Trump further dismissed public health concerns, stating, “I’d tell them, don’t worry about it because it has nothing to do with public health.”
Legal Battle Ahead
The lawsuit is likely to become a major test of the EPA’s authority and the legal role of science in federal climate policy. Environmental law experts predict that courts will examine whether the EPA’s rollback violates the Clean Air Act and whether it ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence on greenhouse gases.
States and additional advocacy groups are expected to join similar legal challenges, creating a series of court battles that could determine the future of federal climate regulation in the United States.
Bottom Line: The lawsuit puts the Trump administration’s EPA squarely in the crosshairs of health, environmental, and legal communities, and the outcome may shape U.S. climate policy for years to come.
If you like, I can also suggest 3–5 punchy alternative headlines that are short, simple, and hooky for social media or your website. This will make the story more clickable and shareable. Do you want me to do that next?
Understood — you want a version that starts with the lawsuit but is much more detailed, analytical, and contextual. Think of it as a deep-dive investigative piece: newsy but layered with legal, scientific, historical, and policy analysis. Here’s a rewritten version suitable for your environmental journalism site, clementsibanda.com:
Environmental Groups Sue EPA Over Trump-Era Climate Rollback: What It Means for U.S. Climate Policy
By Clement Sibanda
Environmental Correspondent
In a high-stakes legal challenge that could redefine federal climate policy, more than a dozen public health and environmental organizations have filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case directly targets the Trump administration’s controversial revocation of the 2009 “endangerment finding”, a legal determination that concluded greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, providing the EPA the authority to regulate emissions.
The lawsuit, filed on 18 February 2026, is backed by major players in environmental advocacy, including the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, with legal representation by Earthjustice and the Clean Air Task Force. It names both the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin as defendants, signaling a direct confrontation over the agency’s legal and scientific responsibilities.
“EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding and safeguards to limit vehicle emissions marks a complete dereliction of the agency’s mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act,” said Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This shameful and dangerous action is rooted in falsehoods, not facts.”
The Endangerment Finding: Why It Matters
The endangerment finding has been the backbone of U.S. federal climate policy for nearly two decades. First issued in 2009 during the Obama administration, the finding declared that six major greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide — contribute to climate change in ways that threaten human health and welfare.
From a legal standpoint, this determination is critical because it triggers the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions. Without it, most federal regulations on vehicles, power plants, and industrial emissions could lack legal footing. Courts have repeatedly upheld the endangerment finding, reinforcing its scientific and legal robustness.
Environmental and public health advocates argue that removing this legal foundation endangers millions of Americans, especially communities already facing disproportionate environmental burdens. Without federal safeguards, states will face a patchwork of protections, some stricter, some looser, leading to inequities in air quality, health outcomes, and climate resilience.
Trump and Zeldin’s Justification
The repeal has been defended vigorously by former President Donald Trump and Administrator Lee Zeldin. Trump described the rollback as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history,” claiming it would relieve Americans of “costly climate policies.” Zeldin accused previous administrations of using the endangerment finding as a tool to enforce what he called a “leftwing wishlist” of regulations.
An EPA spokesperson argued that the rollback was legally justified, labeling prior regulations as “bogus overreach of agenda-driven climate zealots.” Trump further dismissed public health concerns, stating, “I’d tell them, don’t worry about it because it has nothing to do with public health.”
Analysts note, however, that this rhetoric directly conflicts with decades of climate science and undermines the agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment. Critics view the repeal as politically motivated, prioritizing industry interests over science and legal obligation.
The Lawsuit: Legal Arguments and Stakes
The lawsuit challenges the repeal on several fronts:
-
Violation of the Clean Air Act: Plaintiffs argue that the EPA has a statutory duty to regulate pollutants that threaten public health and welfare. Removing the endangerment finding undermines this legal obligation.
-
Disregard for Science: The suit claims that the repeal ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus on the health and environmental risks of greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Public Health and Justice: Environmental justice groups emphasize that low-income communities, communities of color, and frontline workers will disproportionately bear the consequences of higher emissions and worsening climate impacts.
The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. climate governance, determining whether the EPA must restore the endangerment finding or whether the agency has discretion to revoke it based on administrative priorities.
Implications for Policy, Health, and Climate
1. Federal Climate Regulations
With the endangerment finding revoked, the legal basis for federal limits on emissions from vehicles and power plants is destabilized. Analysts warn that this could halt or reverse progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, effectively undermining the U.S.’s domestic climate goals.
2. Public Health Risks
The rollback is expected to increase air pollution and exacerbate climate-related health risks. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and worsening air quality will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing conditions.
3. Environmental Justice
Scrapping federal emissions protections risks widening environmental inequities. Historically marginalized communities often live near industrial sites and are more exposed to pollutants. The lawsuit highlights that these communities are at the greatest risk if emissions are left unregulated.
4. Global Climate Leadership
The U.S., as the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, sets a precedent for other nations. Weakening domestic climate policy may undermine international climate negotiations, erode U.S. credibility, and reduce the pressure on other major emitters to act.
Looking Ahead: Court Battles and Policy Uncertainty
The lawsuit represents the first wave of anticipated legal challenges. States such as California and Connecticut are preparing similar lawsuits, and additional advocacy groups are expected to join. The case could move through multiple levels of federal courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, making it one of the most consequential climate policy battles in U.S. history.
Experts caution that the litigation could take years, but its implications are immediate: the rollback creates regulatory uncertainty, challenges investment in clean energy, and may embolden industries to push back against climate regulations.
Conclusion
While the lawsuit centers on the EPA’s administrative action, its significance extends far beyond courtrooms. It is a defining moment in the intersection of law, science, and politics, raising urgent questions about the United States’ ability to respond to climate change, protect public health, and uphold environmental justice.
The coming months will reveal whether the courts will reinstate the endangerment finding or whether the Trump-era policy shift will set a precedent that reshapes climate governance for decades.