Trump’s environmental rollbacks are being struck down by courts

The Trump administration's efforts to weaken federal environmental protections have repeatedly faced legal challenges and setbacks. Over the past three months, federal courts have delivered rulings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in several cases. In more than half of these cases, judges have ruled against the agency.

Some of these lawsuits remain unresolved, with the EPA considering appeals. The EPA spokesperson, Brigit Hirsch, stated that the Trump EPA is committed to following the law and that recent wins are not receiving the same media attention as short-term losses.

Lawyers involved in the litigation against the EPA view these recent court decisions as a crucial backstop to the administration's aggressive rollbacks of environmental policies. Jillian Blanchard, an attorney at Lawyers for Good Government, noted that the tide seems to be shifting in favor of environmental protections. The usual process for rescinding regulations involves a thorough rulemaking process, but the Trump EPA bypassed this by using existing court cases to weaken regulations.

When the Biden administration updated soot standards in 2024, over 20 Republican-led states sued to overturn them. The Trump EPA then reversed course and asked a court to toss the stronger standards. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in June that the stronger standards should remain.

Another case involved the EPA ignoring a key legal deadline for implementing soot standards. A federal judge in California ordered the EPA to comply with this deadline, which it had previously ignored. When asked about these recent decisions, Hirsch stated that the EPA remains committed to implementing the Clean Air Act as written and is considering appropriate next steps.

The administration has had more success with smaller deregulatory moves, such as reaffirming the Trump EPA's approach to emissions calculations for refineries and upholding the extension of deadlines for steel mills to comply with hazardous emissions standards.

Despite these small victories, the EPA has faced significant setbacks in other areas. A federal judge in South Carolina recently ruled that the EPA's internal guidance to terminate the Environmental and Climate Justice grant program was "arbitrary and capricious and unlawful," directing the agency to restart the program. The EPA is appealing this decision, and a stay was granted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to allow the program to be revived.

In another grant case, the DC Circuit delivered a partial setback to the EPA, ruling against it in a March 2025 decision that terminated roughly $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants. The EPA intends to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

Environmental law professor Jody Freeman emphasized the importance of delay in these cases, stating that lost time is lost momentum in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. As the EPA faces more legal challenges and setbacks, the tide of court decisions seems to be shifting in favor of environmental protections.