American Public Health Association v. EPA

Filing Year For Action

Nonprofit organizations and federally recognized Tribes filed a petition for review challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s rescission of the Clean Air Act endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and the repeal of greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standards.

Filing Year For Action

On March 19, 2026, Massachusetts, 24 other states and territories, the District of Columbia, and 12 local governments filed a petition for review challenging the final rule.

Filing Year For Action

Filing Year For Action

Filing Year For Action

Filing Year For Action

On April 16 and 20, petitioners filed two requests asking the court to defer the call for merits briefing proposals until EPA addresses four reconsideration petitions that ask EPA to hold a comment period on modeling and other material on which the final rule relied for its conclusion that regulation of vehicle greenhouse gases would be futile. One request asked that the call for briefing proposals be deferred until at least June 4, 2026 or until EPA decides whether to grant the reconsideration petitions. The other request, by the petitioners in the lead proceeding, requested that the court grant a deferral of 90 days (to July 20, 2026), which they indicated could allow EPA to fully resolve the reconsideration petitions.

In the consolidated proceedings challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act and repealing all greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles and engines, youth petitioners filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit stay the rule and keep in place “the legal paradigm that existed from 2009 to 2026.” Citing expert declarations that accompanied their motion, the youth petitioners argued that in the absence of a stay, the rule would result in unavoidable increases in emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that would threaten their lives, infringe on their liberties, and substantially burden their religious freedoms. They contended they were likely to succeed on their claims that the rule violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Fifth Amendment. The youth petitioners also contended that the imminent harms to them and to the public tipped the balance of harms and the public interest in favor of a stay. Other petitioners challenging the rule did not take a position on the motion.

Filing Year For Action