Staff Reports
The Justice Department just filed a key merits brief at the Supreme Court in Suncor v. Boulder arguing that federal law — specifically the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency — should displace state climate lawsuits. At the same time, the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin has formally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding that once justified federal greenhouse‑gas rules. That’s not just a policy fight. It’s a self‑inflicted legal mess from the same administration that claims it wants clarity and consistency.
The new showdown: DOJ brief vs. EPA rescission
In its merits brief to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, with Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris listed as counsel of record, argues that state court climate suits intrude on a federal regulatory scheme and should be displaced. In plain language: DOJ told the justices that the Clean Air Act and the EPA should be the place to settle greenhouse‑gas rules, not a patchwork of state courts. Yet the EPA’s final rule rescinding the Endangerment Finding says the agency no longer believes it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases the way the prior administrations did. Those two positions pull in opposite directions.
Why this contradiction matters
If the federal government tells the Supreme Court that federal law occupies the field and preempts state claims, it is implicitly relying on a federal regulatory framework that can govern greenhouse gases. But the EPA rule says that the agency lacks that statutory authority — which would undercut DOJ’s argument. The result is predictable: opponents will point out the inconsistency, judges may call the government on it, and the administration’s chances of winning in court weaken. This isn’t academic parsing; it affects municipal climate suits, industry liability exposure, and the administration’s own defense of its deregulatory agenda.
Who’s dropping the ball — and how to fix it
Call it bureaucratic siloing, sloppy coordination, or something more sincere, but someone in the room needs to straighten this out. President Donald Trump, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche must demand alignment. If the administration wants the Supreme Court to bless federal preemption, DOJ should make sure its position doesn’t rely on an agency posture the agency itself just abandoned. Either DOJ should modify its approach to recognize the agency’s rescission, or EPA should explain how its rule squares with a federal preemption claim. The Solicitor General’s office can and should file a clarifying submission — silence and contradictory briefs will only hand advantage to challengers.
The politics are obvious: conservatives cheer fewer regulatory costs and more certainty, but you don’t get credibility by arguing two mutually exclusive legal theories in two different courts. The administration promised unity and muscle; it ought to deliver coordination instead of courtroom chaos. The Supreme Court deserves a straight answer. The American people — and American businesses — deserve it too. And if anyone in the bureaucracy needs a reminder: consistency isn’t optional, it’s strategic.
