Youth Climate Plaintiffs Challenge Endangerment Repeal on Religious Liberty Grounds

I am quite skeptical of the lawfulness of the Environmental Protection Agency’s rescission of the endangerment finding upon which EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is based. It is an aggressive move that stretches administrative law norms and challenges  Supreme Court precedent.

While I am not convinced the endangerment rescission is lawful, I would hardly argue it is unconstitutional or impinges upon religious liberty. The folks at Our Children’s Trust–the group behind the various kids climate suits–feels otherwise. They (along with Public Justice) have filed a challenge to the endangerment finding repeal making such claims.

Last month, in Venner v. EPA, OCT and Public Justice filed a motion to stay the repeal of the endangerment finding alleging the EPA’s action violates the youth plaintiffs’ “fundamental free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act” and their “rights to life and liberties under the Fifth Amendment.”

Longtime readers know that I do not think much of the federal constitutional arguments advanced in the various kids climate cases. Even without recent decisions such as Dobbs I find the claims that the federal government’s failure to control greenhouse gases is a constitutional violation to be outlandish. The idea that federal courts should superintend federal energy policy is hard to fathom–and would be quite hard to contain. Thus it should be no surprise that federal courts (with one exception) have consistently concluded that they lack jurisdiction over these efforts to constitutionalize climate policy–most recently on Wednesday in Lighthiser v. Trump.

The latest filing adds a new wrinkle in that it seeks to add religious liberty claims into the mix. Specifically, the claim is that a failure to mitigate climate change will burden the exercise of the plaintiffs’ religious faith because rising temperatures will make it more difficult to practice their faiths. [I have posted excerpts from the brief below the jump.]

I find this argument to be quite creative, but I am also quite confident that it will go nowhere. (The petition’s claim that the EPA completely failed to respond to comments raising these concerns, on the other hand, does raise a serious administrative law issue, but I have not looked to see if the claim is correct.])

As for the endangerment finding itself, I will have a brief essay in the summer issue of Regulation expanding on some of my concerns about the lawfulness of the EPA’s move. Rest assured, neither the Fifth Amendment nor RFRA is not among them.

From the petitioners motion to stay the endangerment repeal in Venner v. EPA:

The Repeal Rule substantially burdens Petitioners Elena, J.K., M.D., and E.S.’s sincerely held religious beliefs. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it can demonstrate the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. RFRA offers “broad protection for religious liberty” beyond that afforded by the First Amendment. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 706 (2014); Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 356 (2015). Thus, Petitioners’ showing of substantial burden under the First Amendment also satisfies RFRA. See id. . . .

The Repeal Rule pressures E.S., J.K., and M.D. to modify their behavior in a way that seriously violates their sincerely held religious beliefs by forcing a choice between adherence to their religious tenets, and protecting their health and safety. Petitioners E.S. and J.K. are observant Jews whose religion requires them to walk to synagogue on the Sabbath. Declarations of L.K. ¶10 (Ex. 20); J.K. ¶¶5-6 (Ex. 21); E.S. ¶¶16-18 (Ex. 19). M.D. is an observant Muslim whose religion requires her to fast during Ramadan. M.D. ¶¶4-7 (Ex. 23); S.A. ¶¶12-13 (Ex. 22). Each Sabbath that is made too hot for E.S. and J.K. to walk safely to synagogue, and each day of Ramadan that is made too hot for M.D. to safely fast and wear hijab, is a day they are prevented from observing important requirements of their religions. E.S. ¶¶12, 22-24; L.K. ¶19; J.K. ¶¶7-9; M.D. ¶¶4-7; S.A. ¶14; Pinsky ¶¶41, 44-46, 58-59; see also L.K. ¶¶25-34 (Sukkot practice harmed); J.K. ¶¶12-14 (same). The Repeal Rule forces E.S., J.K., and M.D. to choose between religious practice and physical safety more frequently than they would otherwise because the Repeal Rule will cause an additional 8.81 gigatons of CO2 pollution to be emitted. Wilson ¶20. This staggering quantity is 1.85 times the United States’ total CO2 emissions in 2024. Running ¶11. This quantity worsens local heat surrounding E.S.’s, J.K.’s, and M.D.’s homes, increasing the number of days that they are prevented from exercising their religious beliefs. Running ¶¶15-34; Wilson ¶¶6-13; Jacobson ¶9; E.S. ¶¶24, 22 (“If I’m not in a minyan, there are some prayers I can’t say.”); J.K. ¶11; M.D. ¶7. The burden is more substantial here than in Hobby Lobby because the pressure for youth to disobey their religion’s requirements comes not from a fine that can be paid, but from physical hazards to bodily health and safety, other inalienable rights. E.S. ¶12; Pinsky ¶¶41-45.

The Supreme Court’s decision4 in Mahmoud v. Taylor confirms that the Repeal Rule substantially burdens E.S., J.K., and M.D.’s religious exercise because it poses “a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill in their children” and thus is an “objective danger to the free exercise of religion.” 606 U.S. 522, 543, 565 (2025) (holding requiring LGBTQ+inclusive storybooks in school curriculum substantially burdens parents wishing to instill contrary religious beliefs in children) (citation modified). The burden imposed here is more severe than in Mahmoud because the Repeal Rule hinders E.S.’s, J.K.’s, and M.D.’s religious development by preventing their ability to safely engage in core religious practices with their family in community. E.S. is “a young person who is actively trying to develop [his] religious practice[,]” and “losing a Shabbos [Sabbath] service” makes him “less capable of internalizing Jewish Law and integrating it into [his] life.” E.S. ¶23. In J.K.’s family, “[e]ach additional hot Saturday diminishes the habit of attending synagogue regularly, thereby diminishing our closeness to God, our sense of community, and our ability to inspire our children to lead Jewish lives.” L.K. ¶21. This “profoundly distress[es]” J.K.’s mother because it “could impact both [J.K.’s] ability to enjoy the service as well as his ability to transmit this essential knowledge to his future children.” Id. ¶22. M.D.’s mother confirms that extreme heat and climate events have disrupted their religious rituals, and she worries about her daughter’s safety wearing hijab in dangerous heat. S.A. ¶¶9-16. As a parent, she must weigh her children’s immediate health against her obligation to pass down religious traditions and practices “at a crucial time in my children’s religious development as they are entering adulthood.” S.A. ¶¶8-17. The increased localized heat from the GHG emissions from the Repeal Rule will thus “substantially interfer[e] with [Petitioners’] religious development” during their “crucial adolescent stage of development” by limiting meaningful opportunities to learn, practice, and internalize their parents’ religious values. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972).

The Repeal Rule also imposes a substantial burden on Petitioner Elena, a Catholic youth, by forcing her to choose between two sincerely held beliefs: the obligation to procreate, and the obligation to protect the lives of children. Elena ¶¶9 14. Elena cannot do both because the worsening, rather than improving, air pollution and climate conditions created by the Repeal Rule limit the conditions which Elena sincerely believes are necessary for nurturing and protecting children. Elena ¶¶1314; Pinsky ¶¶10-16, 28, 37, 60-62; Wilson ¶¶4-34; Running ¶¶16, 25-50. “It violates my beliefs to bring someone into this world whose life would be burdened with hazardous air quality and increasing extreme and dangerous heat,” because such conditions undermine “life, in utero, for newborns, for growing children, and for mothers[.]” Elena ¶¶13-14; Pinsky ¶¶61-62 (“More babies will be born early or at low weight . . . [a] small number of these babies will also die.”); Wilson ¶¶4-34; Running ¶¶16, 25-50. The Repeal Rule thus substantially burdens Elena’s exercise of her Catholic faith by forcing her to “engage in conduct that seriously violates” her beliefs by making it impossible for her personally to safely practice her faith’s call to procreate and protect life. See Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 720.