A regulatory retreat in Washington may be setting the stage for a legal advance elsewhere.
The Trump administration is preparing to scrap a 2009 scientific determination that declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health — a finding that has underpinned federal climate regulation for more than a decade. While the move is being cast as a sweeping act of deregulation, legal scholars say it could carry an unintended consequence: reviving a wave of lawsuits once thought buried.
At the heart of the issue is the so-called “endangerment finding,” the legal trigger that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Remove that trigger, and the federal government effectively steps back from the field.
That vacuum, experts argue, could invite states and cities to step forward.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal climate regulation displaced public nuisance lawsuits aimed at major power producers. The court reasoned that Congress had assigned the EPA — not federal judges — to manage greenhouse gas emissions. That decision became a sturdy shield for utilities facing claims that their emissions contributed to climate change.
But if the EPA dismantles the regulatory framework that justified that ruling, the logic supporting it may weaken.
Legal analysts suggest that without an active federal regime governing greenhouse gases, courts may be more willing to entertain public nuisance claims — a centuries-old doctrine that targets activities deemed harmful to community health or safety. These cases are notoriously difficult to win, largely because of the challenge in tracing specific climate harms to specific emitters. Still, they offer a pathway for governments seeking compensation or remediation costs linked to climate impacts.
Industry groups have taken note. While many utilities have welcomed broader deregulation efforts, some have cautioned that eliminating the endangerment finding could expose companies to renewed litigation risks, regardless of whether such claims ultimately succeed.
The potential shift is significant. For years, climate liability efforts in federal courts were largely stymied by the Supreme Court’s precedent. Some state-level cases survived procedural battles, but the federal courthouse doors were mostly closed.
Now, with the regulatory architecture itself under review, those doors may creak open again.
Legal observers describe the moment as a possible turning point — not because it guarantees courtroom victories for climate plaintiffs, but because it reshuffles the strategic map. If federal oversight recedes, judges could once again be asked to decide whether major emitters bear legal responsibility for climate-related damage.
In seeking to unwind one of the pillars of U.S. climate policy, the administration may have created an unexpected arena for the next phase of the climate fight — one that unfolds not in rulemaking dockets, but before juries and judges.
