Environmental Law: The “Gold Standard” of Science at the EPA
In February of 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the administration of Lee Zeldin, established and finalized the revocation of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. This was carried out hastily at the turn of the second half of Trump’s administration, supposedly aimed at fulfilling campaign promises to bolster the fossil fuel industry and dismantle any environmental regulations placed by the previous Biden administration. By removing this 2009 determination, the EPA essentially removed its own authority to regulate greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions from automobiles, power plants, and industrial sources under the Clean Air Act. Lee Zeldin labeled this as the largest deregulatory action in the nation’s history and would notably decrease American regulatory costs by 1.3 trillion dollars. In full, the revocation represents the reversal of 15 years' worth of environmental policy, and aims to halt the progress towards electric vehicles and tearing down regulations on coal-fired power plants.
This revocation doesn’t simply act as a policy disagreement; it's legally justified by the “Gold Standard” principles, which argue that past climate data failed to satisfy new thresholds for “transparency of underlying data” and “reproducibility.” Therefore, this standard operates as a gatekeeping mechanism for administrative law, making it more difficult for government agencies to establish regulations based on emerging or “precautionary” science. In other words, if the public, or a company that needs it, doesn’t receive raw data and re-run an experiment themselves to see the same result, the EPA cannot make it into a rule. However, this creates a pressing legal conflict; if a study utilizes private health data, it gets banned on account of it being “secret science.” But if the EPA ignores the study, they may be accused of ignoring the best available science.
Whether or not the agency can overlook twenty years' worth of global research for the sake of aligning with the specific formatting of a new internal rule is currently a key point of governmental contention. Many hurdles to this situation cannot be overlooked, such as the question of whether or not ”better formatting” qualifies as a legal reason to ignore decades of peer-reviewed data. In 2020, the Supreme Court Case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California ruled that the Trump administration's rescission of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was "arbitrary and capricious.” According to the Court, the action didn’t properly adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the DHS didn’t provide proper reasoning for ending the program, and ignored the impact it would have on recipients.
The most notable legal conflict comes from the contradiction present between the new Executive Order and the CAA (Clean Air Act). To elucidate, the CAA legally requires the EPA to use the “Best Available Science” to maintain the security of the public’s health. However, many of the “best available" studies, such as the fundamental study that linked air pollution to lung disease, lean on private medical records for information. These records cannot be publicized without violating HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and other privacy laws. By effectively barring the public from accessing these studies, the EPA is banning itself from looking at the most accurate scientific data that’s available. This “legal impossibility" that’s created is likely where the majority of 2026 lawsuits will focus.
Beyond the legal debate that was instigated, a major question arose about how the EPA actually pushed this through with such ease. Agencies are commonly expected to abide by a “notice-and-comment” period under the Administrative Procedure Act, to give enough time for businesses, scientists, and the general public to adjust to a massive policy change. However, by fully finalizing this revocation this month, the EPA probably truncated this system. Critics bring forth that such a large change brought on by the administration cannot be legally done in such a small window of time. The 2009 Act created a foundation of rules that affected over a trillion dollars in economic value, and would continue to do so for the 15 years that followed. Its revocation was therefore a change of large magnitude, so if the D.C. Circuit Court finds any steps the EPA overlooked or any scientific objections they didn’t account for, the entire revocation could be thrown out.
In addition, as of mid-February 2026, the legal passage for many lawsuits has opened up on three primary arguments. The first standing precedent argues that the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA is not simply a suggestion but a mandate set forth by the Court. Therefore, the EPA cannot utilize means of interpretation as a method to regulate greenhouse gas as a direct court order would. Additionally, there is a pretty large administrative blind spot in that recent lawsuits have demonstrated that the EPA ignored the “Social Costs of Carbon,” which included a huge amount of taxpayer dollars. These were collected for disaster aid, rising sea levels, and healthcare payments. Also interesting, the EPA is expected to account for and use the Major Questions Doctrine — established by the 2022 West Virginia v. EPA case — in its defense.
The Major Questions Doctrine essentially states that if a government agency wants to make a decision or follow through with an action that could potentially have “vast economic and political significance," they must show they had clear command from Congress to back it. Lee Zeldin’s administrative legal team is putting this Doctrine to use, arguing that the EPA actually never possessed the power to regulate greenhouse gases to begin with. Zeldin and his team employ a specific line of thought in their argument, starting with the “economic significance” test. The EPA’s own estimation that this revocation saves 1.3 trillion dollars in the long-run suggests an economic decision of very large magnitude, meaning it should fall in the hands of Congress. Another integral part of Zeldin and his team’s argument is the “clear authorization gap,” based on the EPA’s claim that the Clean Air Act’s general language regarding “any air pollutant” is unclear/too vague. Thus, it can’t encompass something as worldwide and transformative as climate change, so the EPA is legally overstepping its barriers by acting.
The revocation of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding in full is a watershed moment for American administrative law. This action’s characterization and framing as a victory for “Gold Standard” science under the current administration is undeniably harmful. The agency has effectively done much more via this decision than just roll back on specific rules and power plants; it has altered the rudimentary burden of proof that’s been historically required to protect public health and welfare. Thus, if the court upholds the revocation, the EPA’s role as a proactive climate regulator will promptly come to an end.
Bibliography
Supreme Court of the United States. “DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.” Accessed February 12th, 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov
The HIPAA Journal. “HIPAA Updates and HIPAA Changes in 2026.” Accessed February 12th, 2026. https://www.hipaajournal.com
Holland and Knight Law Firm. “EPA Repeals Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards and the Underlying Endangerment Finding.” Accessed February 15th, 2026. https://www.hklaw.com
National Library of Medicine. “Massachusetts Et Al. v Environmental Protection Agency: Implications For Public Health Policy And Practice.” Accessed February 15th, 2026. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Final Rule: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act.” Accessed February 19th, 2026. https://www.epa.gov
The Georgetown Environmental Law Review. “From Massachusetts to Major Questions: Can the EPA Dismantle Its Own Climate Authority?” Accessed February 25th, 2026. https://www.law.georgetown.edu