Ted Cruz Backs EPA Move to Rescind 2009 Greenhouse Gas Finding

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R), joined by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), has filed an amicus brief supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to rescind the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a key regulatory basis for federal limits on vehicle emissions.

The filing centers on the "major questions doctrine," a legal principle that limits federal agencies' authority to make sweeping policy decisions without explicit authorization from Congress. Sens. Cruz and Lummis argue that the original Endangerment Finding and the emissions standards that followed exceeded the EPA's statutory authority under the Clean Air Act.

According to the brief, regulating greenhouse gas emissions to address global climate change carries "vast economic and political significance," impacting nearly every sector of the U.S. economy. The senators contend that such a transformation – particularly one that could accelerate a shift from gasoline-powered vehicles to electric vehicles – requires clear direction from Congress, not unilateral agency action.

"The EPA correctly concluded that the major questions doctrine independently barred the Agency from regulating the GHG vehicle emissions," the brief states, asserting that the 2009 rule represented an attempt to resolve a national policy debate through administrative means rather than legislative action.

Supporters of the EPA's reversal argue that it restores constitutional boundaries by reinforcing the separation of powers, ensuring that major policy decisions remain with elected lawmakers. Critics, however, warn that rescinding the Endangerment Finding could weaken federal efforts to address climate change and reduce emissions.

The legal battle over the Endangerment Finding is expected to have far-reaching implications, particularly as courts continue to define the scope of federal agencies' authority to regulate environmental and economic policy.

The amicus brief from Sens. Cruz and Lummis underscores a broader legal and political fight over the limits of administrative power, with the outcome poised to shape the future of federal climate regulation.