Readers of my previous (August 13) post on the Endangerment Finding (EF) litigation pending in the D.C. Circuit may have come away wondering about this issue: What is the basis on which this coalition of most blue states plus many major municipalities and big-time environmental NGOs seeks to put an indefinite stall on resolution of the litigation?

As reported in that post, after the Trump EPA had finalized its rescission of the EF in February 2026, a large number of blue states, municipalities and environmental NGOs promptly filed Petitions in the D.C. Circuit seeking to have the court block that action. But, once having commenced the case, the same group of major actors immediately started engaging in tactics to slow the litigation down and postpone the beginning of briefing on the merits. Most recently on July 29, a large group of most of the Petitioners in the litigation — including some 20 blue states (California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc., etc.), large municipalities (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., etc.), and NGOs (Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, etc., etc.) — filed a motion to put the case into “abeyance” for 30 days to force EPA to re-do some of the analysis that supports the rescission. While the “abeyance” request itself is only for 30 days, a re-do of EPA’s analysis could re-start the running of multiple clocks, and thereby delay the litigation for months, if not a year or more.

Now, this litigation potentially affects some trillions of dollars of economic activity. Surely, if there is to be a significant delay, there must be some very important reason. But in fact the stated basis for the motion, backed by all these big-time entities, is beyond trivial.

The Endangerment Finding (EF) is the completely absurd piece of regulatory overreach by which the Obama EPA in December 2009 purported to determine that the trace atmospheric gas carbon dioxide was a “danger to human health and welfare.” That action may have been absurd, but it was by no means benign. CO2 is a principal product of all combustion of fossil fuels. Following on the EF, EPA and other government agencies in the Obama and then Biden Administrations set out to use the EF as the basis to transform our entire energy economy — suppressing drilling, blocking pipelines, forcing closure of power plants, outlawing combustion cars and gas heat and stoves, and much, much more.

In Trump’s first term, EPA never chose to take on the EF; but in Trump’s second term the agency got right to work on the job of rescission, and issued the final rule rescinding the first part of the EF (as to motor vehicle emissions) on February 13, 2026. By February 18, progressive NGOs were already in court (D.C. Circuit) seeking to block the rescission. I covered the rescission of the EF in this post on February 15, and then the status of the litigation in this further post on July 21.

If you are interested in this subject, here is the key issue to watch: Do the progressive NGOs and their blue state co-petitioners, and for that matter the D.C. Circuit itself, want this case to proceed to a quick resolution? Or do they want to stall?

• On February 13 this year, the federal EPA rescinded one of its regulatory actions known as the “Endangerment Finding.” (EF).

• The EF, originally adopted in 2009 early in the Obama administration, was likely the single most costly and destructive regulatory action ever to spring forth from the administrative state. The EF became the fundamental underpinning for all the subsequent regulations that sought to restrict and ultimately ban use of fossil fuels in the economy — everything from regulations seeking to force closure of power plants, to efforts to mandate only electric cars, to restrictions on drilling and pipelines, and much, much more. The Trump administration is now systematically dismantling all those regulatory wrecking balls.

• But the opposition has not been idle. Once the rescission became final, the Climate Blob immediately sprang into action with a barrage of lawfare. The first litigation challenging rescission of the EF was filed in the D.C. Circuit on February 18.

• Have you heard of the “Endangerment Finding” (EF)? You have if you have been reading this blog for any period of time.

• The 2009 EF is likely the most consequential, expensive and destructive regulatory action ever put in place by the federal bureaucracy. In that action, EPA claimed to find that carbon dioxide and several other so-called “greenhouse gases” constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare. Using the EF as the predicate, the administrative state under the Obama and Biden presidencies implemented dozens of major regulations intended to transform the entire energy sector of the U.S. economy. Obama/Biden regulations based on the EF sought, for example, to force the closure of all fossil-fuel based power plants; to end the production of internal-combustion-based cars in favor of electric cars; to restrict drilling for oil and for natural gas; to halt construction of pipelines; and many, many other such things.

• The total cost was heading well into the trillions when President Trump returned to office in 2025. One of Trump’s first day Executive Orders in his second term directed all agencies to “review” and then begin to “suspend, revise, or rescind” all agency actions “identified as unduly burdensome” to U.S. energy production. EPA promptly began a lengthy regulatory process to rescind the EF. The final rule doing away with the EF became final on February 13, 2026. I had a post reporting on the rescission on February 15.

• If it withstands court challenges, the rescission of the EF is a death blow against the entire and vast climate grift industry. Obviously the rescission was going to unleash a tsunami of litigation.