The incoming Trump administration is expected to enact major changes and reversals of President Joe Biden’s environmental, climate, and clean energy policies. But federal administrative and constitutional law is complex and evolving, and President-elect Donald Trump will still need to follow often-slow Administrative Procedure Act steps to propose, revise, or withdraw federal regulations.

The interplay of the three branches of government—set against the backdrop of cooperative federalism and the heightened role of the states—will be interesting to watch.

Congressional Action

The Senate’s 60-vote filibuster rule and the historically small House majority may prove a challenge to passage of major environmental and climate legislation. Republicans will hold a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate and a razor-thin majority in the House.

Senate Republicans are expected to use special, streamlined budget reconciliation rules that require only a simple majority for passage, possibly to limit or scale back the scope and expense of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s renewable energy tax credits.

We expect Congress to use Congressional Review Act procedures in 2025 to directly repeal at least some environmental rules finalized late in the Biden Administration’s term.

Federal Courts

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondoto no longer require courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statues or unclear laws will be a mixed blessing for the Trump administration’s pursuit of aggressive regulatory changes. The new administration will be unable to switch or revise federal rules instantly, and its agencies (under new leadership) won’t be entitled to binding deference.

The overall thrust of recent court decisions may make environmental rules more susceptible to third-party challenges, now that agency rules are largely not entitled to Chevron deference. The lesser-known Skidmore v. Swift & Co.doctrine survives, providing more limited, non-binding “respect” to a federal agency’s interpretation according to the strength of the agency’s reasoning, consistency, expertise, and persuasiveness.

Federal courts still can acknowledge and provide weight and respect for agency interpretations, particularly those that are consistent with past agency practice and can be helpful for judicial interpretative purposes. So although “deference” is out, don’t count out agencies’ views just yet in rule development and rule defense.

The Supreme Court is expected to continue shaping (and likely limiting) the contours and scope of the administrative state. InFCC v. Consumers’ Research and SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research(cases consolidated), the justices will consider (if the court reaches the merits) key questions relating to current precedent surrounding the non-delegation doctrine and how much authority Congress has to delegate to agencies (and agencies to non-governmental entities), with a decision expected by June 2025.

Some justices and conservative legal scholars have argued that the non-delegation doctrine should be more closely scrutinized and applied—and to more critically analyze legislative delegations to agencies that may violate separation of powers concerns.

Trump Environmental Action

Meanwhile, the Trump team will be able to quickly issue new or revised executive orders, agency guidance and policy statements; withdraw or abandon previously proposed or pending federal rules and regulations; and decide that it will no longer defend challenged federal environmental rules or cases in pending cases.

Highlights of some potential Trump environmental priorities include withdrawing from the Paris climate change agreement; abandoning the climate and carbon disclosure rule; increasing support for domestic fossil fuel production and development; eliminating or reducing some or all renewable energy tax credit provisions in the tax and climate law; targeting waivers to California under the Clean Air Act; and curtailing or limiting environmental justice initiatives.

States and NGOs

On the flip side, states—especially California and other Democratic state attorneys general— environmental groups, and other non-governmental organizations are expected to play large roles in a wide range of legal challenges against the new Trump administration.

Trump will likely seek to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency’s expected waiver authorizing California to generally ban the sale of new gasoline-based cars by 2035. This forms the legal basis under the Clean Air Act for similar state clean car rules in more than 15 other states and jurisdictions.

This month, California also held a special legislative session to prepare for strategy and additional funding to address potential Trump environmental moves. Many local governments and states, especially in the Pacific Northwest and in the Northeast, are expected to emphasize and pursue their own clean energy and climate efforts during the next four years.

Outlook

While the overall direction of federal environmental law and policy is expected to be generally conservative in 2025, broader legislative and regulatory environmental changes will take longer to play out. Still, the looming 2026 midterm House elections will pressure Republicans to seek to enact an ambitious environmental regulatory agenda over the next two years.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Jason S. Lichtstein is managing partner of Akerman’s Atlanta office, focused on cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields and other contaminated sites in the Southeast US.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines