Litigation Update
June 26, 2026
This week’s newsletter discusses a lawsuit challenging the rescission of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, a trend of PFAS-related litigation, quarantine issues related to Hantavirus & Ebola, and a proposed rule that could politicize federal grant funding. To access any of our previous newsletters, you can find them archived here.
APHA v. EPA: Public Health, Environmental Groups Sue Over Rescission of Endangerment Finding
In American Public Health Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 26-1037), a number of public health and environmental organizations are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA’s rescission of its 2009 “Endangerment Finding.”
The 2009 Endangerment Finding found that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare and that the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles creates pollution that threatens health and welfare. This finding allowed the EPA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. But the Trump administration’s EPA repealed the Endangerment Finding in February of 2026, when it issued a final rule and concluded that the EPA lacked authority to implement greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles without the Endangerment Finding in place.
In its legal action, the American Public Health Association and other Petitioners are specifically asking the Court to determine whether (1) the repeal of the Endangerment Finding was arbitrary and capricious and/or contrary to binding precedent, (2) the repeal of the 2009 rule is contrary to the best reading of the Clean Air Act, (3) the recession of the rule improperly interferes with the EPA’s recognized authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and (4) the repeal is unlawful because its scientific judgments are unsupported, among other issues.
If upheld, the repeal of the Endangerment Finding could have dangerous public health consequences, as vehicles would be allowed to emit a higher amount of dangerous air pollutants linked to chronic health and lung conditions as well as early mortality. Additionally, warmer temperatures stemming from increased greenhouse gas emissions have been linked with more premature births, hospitalizations for lung and heart issues, and respiratory diseases, among other conditions.
We will continue to track this case and provide updates as needed.
Municipalities Sue Over PFAS Contamination
A legal trend we’ve been tracking is municipalities and public service providers suing to address contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as forever chemicals.
In one such case, City of Benton City v. 3M Company (Docket No. 2:18-mn-2873), the city sued the company 3M and other defendants to “address PFAS impacts to its public water system and waste water system” that they allege were caused by the defendants’ products. 3M is facing other similar lawsuits around the country.
In another case, City of Dayton, Ohio v. United States (Docket No. 1:26-cv-178), the city sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) to recoup costs from addressing PFAS contamination of the city’s drinking supply stemming from activities at a nearby U.S. Air Force base.
An additional suit, Littleton Water District, Massachusetts v. Jumbo Capital Management, LLC (Docket No. 1:26-cv-12606), involves the water district alleging that Littleton’s water supply is being contaminated by PFAS purchased, used, released, and/or disposed of by the defendants. The water district is seeking to recover the costs needed to clean up the contamination.
PFAS contamination is a consistent problem around the country, as forever chemicals have been found in products ranging from cookware to firefighting foam to clothing. The presence of these chemicals is dangerous. PFAS in the blood has been associated with a number of adverse health impacts, including an increased risk of diabetes, lower birth weights, decreased kidney function, a weakened immune response, and thyroid and liver issues, among other problems.
Hantavirus & Ebola: How U.S. Officials Reject Science and Disregard Constitution
One cruise ship passenger exposed to hantavirus is still being held in a quarantine facility despite the CDC’s recommendations that she may return home for the remainder of her quarantine. The passenger, Angela Perryman, challenged a federal order to remain at the National Quarantine Unit in Nebraska, asking instead to self-quarantine at her home in Florida. Dr. Michael Bell, the CDC’s quarantine medical reviewer, concluded that continued confinement in Nebraska was unnecessary, and home-based monitoring was an adequate measure to protect the public. On June 15, HHS Secretary Kennedy signed an order to continue quarantining Perryman, even though several other passengers have been allowed to self-quarantine in their homes if they chose to do so.
The CDC asked states to provide in-person symptom checks and 24/7 in-person guards for passengers who returned home. Despite these unprecedented measures that have not been necessary during previous quarantines, those states that accepted self-quarantine passengers agreed to the last-minute requirements. However, Florida has pushed back and refused to accept the conditions. Perryman remains in quarantine in Nebraska, despite Dr. Bell’s arguments that home-based management was the least restrictive means by which the government can achieve their public health and safety goals.
Secretary Kennedy’s choice to override medical expert opinions signals constitutional concerns for how the current HHS administration will deal with future–or current–disease outbreaks. It is unusual for the CDC to set quarantine and isolation measures, as that is usually done by local and state officials, and here, Kennedy, who is neither a medical professional nor infectious disease expert, is overriding advice of experts and issuing orders to continue quarantine without any scientific backing for his decision.
The Trump administration is taking a similar, unscientific approach to the Ebola virus outbreak and travelers returning to the U.S. from affected countries. While citizens have an unqualified right of return to the U.S., and permanent residents have significant rights, the CDC acting director barred entry to lawful permanent residents traveling back from Ebola-impacted regions, which is likely unconstitutional. We will continue to track legal challenges to Hantavirus-related quarantine and the U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak.
Take Action Now: Oppose Proposed OMB Rule to Politicize Federal Grant Funding
The White House Office of Management and Budget issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OMB-2026-0034, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, which would politicize awarding and continuation of federal grants, and regulate non-grant activities of groups that receive federal funds. This NPRM would require grants to be approved by a political appointee and permit them to deny potential funding if the grantee is affiliated with policy positions different from those of the administration.
The politicization of federal grants would create financial instability for thousands of organizations, state and local governments, schools, and the millions of individuals they serve across the United States. For public health in particular, this would impact healthcare and social service organizations whose activities do not align with the current administration. Discretionary termination could result in active federal grants being canceled mid-project because an appointee thinks it “no longer serves the national interest,” which could halt programs serving patients with chronic disease, food banks administering multi-year USDA nutrition programs, or women’s health organizations serving patients with critical needs.
You can take action to oppose this proposed rule. Several organizations are providing resources to write letters and comments to challenge the rule, including Defend Public Health, the APHA, and Stand Up for Science. The public comment period closes on July 13, 2026.
Partner With Us! Please take this survey to let us know about local and state cases impacting public health or health equity, and to help us build our network of outside counsel. (password: amicus)