Regulatory Battlegrounds Intensify with the Rescission of the 2009 Green House Gases Endangerment Finding
Written by Bryan Santos-Flores
Introduction
On January 31, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order (EO 14154) requiring all agencies to repeal 10 existing regulations for every 1 newly proposed. This “10-to-1 deregulation initiative” focused on reducing costs imposed by agency regulations, especially through a large-scale repeal of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) vehicle emissions standards. The executive order tasked the EPA specifically with reviewing the “legality and continuing applicability” of 2009 Green House Gases Endangerment Finding (Trump, 2025). On February 12th, 2026, the EPA finalized its rescission of the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding, an action now characterized as the largest deregulation in U.S. history (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2026). Its removal has not only redacted all subsequent GHG emission standards for vehicles but has also transformed the relationship between businesses and the federal government from one of “compliance” to one of “strategic litigation and risk management.”
Background
While Trump’s EO on agency regulation was the primary catalyst to the rescission of the GNG Endangerment Finding, a previous Supreme Court ruling would apprehend agencies' rights to discretion, setting the necessary legal groundwork. This ruling marked the beginning of the demise of the Chevron Doctrine. Before we get to that, it's important to first explain what the Chevron Doctrine is.
It all started on June 25th, 1984, the Court's landmark ruling on Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The dispute originated as a conflict over air pollution permits under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which required permitting for any “new or modified major stationary source” of emission. Under the CAA, the EPA had introduced a new, flexible regulatory framework known as the “Bubble Act.” The policy was promptly challenged by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which argued that the EPA’s interpretation of “stationary source” undermined the intent of the act (Oyez, 2019). In 1984, the Supreme Court
ruled unanimously in favor of Chevron (and EPA), holding that when a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to a reasonable agency’s interpretation, establishing the legal doctrine known as the “Chevron Deference.” For 40 years, the Chevron Doctrine would become one of the most cited cases in administrative law. It would first be used as a tool for deregulation but would eventually become the primary instrument for expansive regulation and delegating regulation-making to agencies.
The 40-year-old pillar would later be completely dismantled in June 2024 by commercial fishermen.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo originated from a dispute involving New England commercial fishermen and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS issued a mandate, in justification of the Magnusons-Stevens Act, requiring companies to install federal monitors on boats to prevent overfishing. While the act was silent on who would bear the cost, the NMFA imposed the monitor-cost onto the private companies. The fishermen argued the agency's overreach of power to force private companies to pay for these federal monitors. Under the old Chevron doctrine, if a law was ambiguous, agencies could act on their own interpretation, provided it was reasonable. In this case, however, the Court ruled in favor of the fishermen (6-3), stating that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), judges – not agency bureaucrats – must exercise independent discretion to decide what a law means. More importantly, it used the case to overrule the Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024).
The Supreme Court’s ruling stripped the shield that once protected agencies' right to discretion. Now, the judiciary – not agencies – has the final say on what the CAA means. The Trump administration then issued EOs to review GHG regulations, using Loper Bright as the primary legal weapon to execute its plan to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The EPA’s proposed deregulatory rules received little pushback, as the Administration could frame them as a constitutional correction rather than a policy choice, successfully arguing that the previous regulations were an unlawful overreach (Turrentine, 2024).
Industry Overview
With the rescission of the 2009 GHG Endangerment finding and dismantling of the Chevron Doctrine, the “expert” shield held by agencies is no longer in place, leaving a federal void of regulation. Without a federal floor on GHG emissions, state regulation has intensified, doubling down on their own standards to fill the void. In response, businesses are operating in these ruleless areas, facing legal uncertainty and state-level fragmentation. We can take a deeper look at the effects of the recession at both an industry and legal lens.
Automotive and Transportation Industry
At the federal level, the so-called ‘reliable’ automakers are no longer burdened by those pesky CO2 limits when developing new models. The EPA estimates that manufacturers will save $1.3 trillion in engineering costs and R&D with the deregulation of emission standards (EPA, 2026). In turn, the EPA refused to calculate the impacts of increased pollution and climate damage. Though, noting there would be a significant increase in pollution, ironic. The guard railings protecting public health are now faulty, as state regulators now rush to pick up the fragments.
Banking, Insurance and Finance
Probably the most chaotic fallout is within the financial and insurance sectors, with the retreat of federal regulation, uniform climate metrics, and emissions data used to build traditional economics models no longer being standardized. Unable to accurately price climate risk, property and casualty insurers are aggressively raising premiums to buffer against uncertainty or completely abandoning volatile markets (such as Florida, California, and other coastal regions) (Erten & Ongena, 2024). In addition, investors are forced to fly blind, building high speculative risk models to re-evaluate loans for infrastructure, real estate, and manufacturing. In response to federal deregulation, financial and insurance industries are adopting or developing their own private governance protocols.
Legal strategy
Without a uniform federal floor, states are responding by either doubling down on regulation or penalizing companies for adopting ESG initiatives. This has severely complicated business operations, as companies buffer between compliance in “Blue” states and dodging anti-ESG penalties in “Red” states. Furthermore, with the dismantling of the Chevron doctrine, corporate strategy has fundamentally shifted. Instead of lobbying federal agencies to alter rules, businesses are now bypassing agencies altogether, preemptively filing hand-picked lawsuits against state-level overreach under the Commerce Clause.
Future Outlook
Ultimately, the rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and the dismantling of the Chevron doctrine have birthed a complex, high-stakes battleground where the only constant is uncertainty. By shifting power of discretion from unelected agency experts back to the judiciary and the states, the U.S has moved towards a more decentralized and legally scrutinizing system.
This shift has resulted in a fragmented landscape of state governance, with regulatory models varying significantly from one jurisdiction to the next. In this new era, success will belong to firms who can remain agile, navigating the complex legal environment while proactively self-regulating to meet both industry demands and global standards. The federal void left behind is a call to action to corporate leaders to redefine their own standards and future strategy.
Sources
Erten & Ongena. (2024). Do Banks Price Environmental Risk? Only When Local Beliefs are Binding! https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4932511
Executive Order 14154—Unleashing American Energy | The American Presidency Project. (2025). Ucsb.edu. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14154-unl eashing-american-energy
Fact Sheet: Economics__________________________ Final Rule: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act. (n.d.). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-03/420f26002.pdf
Final Rule: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act | US EPA. (2025, November 17). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-rescission-gre enhouse-gas-endangerment
Oyez. (2019). Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1005
President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History | US EPA. (2026, February 12). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/president-trump-and-administrator-zeldin-deliver-singl e-largest-deregulatory-action-us
Silver, J. (2026, February 24). Why the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Deregulation is a Public Health Crisis in the Making. Latino Policy & Politics Institute. https://latino.ucla.edu/why-the-epas-greenhouse-gas-deregulation-is-a-public-health-crisi s-in-the-making/
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (2023).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Turrentine, J. (2024, June 28). What Happens If the Supreme Court Ends “Chevron Deference”? Www.nrdc.org. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference
