A federal appeals court this week invalidated an Environmental Protection Agency rule that would have banned nearly all commercial and consumer uses of methylene chloride, a paint stripper chemical linked to dozens of deaths and classified as a probable human carcinogen. The decision marks a significant setback for chemical safety regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act and raises questions about the agency's approach to risk assessment.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, found that the EPA overstepped its authority by relying on what the judges described as the most extreme scientific positions at every stage of its analysis. The court specifically criticized the agency for discounting decades of human epidemiological data showing no significant adverse effects, and for assuming that workers would not use personal protective equipment—a core assumption in the agency's risk calculations.
“At every juncture of its scientific analysis, EPA has gone with the most extreme position,” wrote Judges Patrick Higginbotham and Edith Jones, both appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by President George W. Bush. The judges also said the agency “failed to adequately consider profound economic consequences of its regulation or the limited availability of alternatives that are economically and technically feasible.”
The rule, finalized in 2024 under the Biden administration, had been defended in court by the Trump administration, which simultaneously signaled it would revisit certain provisions—including the no-PPE assumption. The court's ruling effectively sends the rule back to the EPA, forcing the agency to reconsider its scientific and economic justifications if it chooses to reissue a revised regulation.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing chemical manufacturers, welcomed the decision. In a statement, the group said it “appreciates the current EPA’s efforts to bring greater transparency, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory certainty to TSCA implementation, and this ruling provides an important foundation for that work.” The group has long argued that the EPA’s risk evaluations under TSCA have been overly stringent and have not adequately weighed real-world exposure conditions or the availability of substitutes.
Public health advocates, however, expressed alarm. Liz Hitchcock, director of federal policy at Toxic-Free Future, said in a statement: “This ruling sides with the chemical industry at the expense of public health and will put more people at risk of serious harm, including death from acute exposure, cancer, and kidney and liver toxicity from long-term exposures.” The EPA had documented at least 88 deaths from acute methylene chloride exposure since 1980, many of them occurring during home renovation projects and in poorly ventilated industrial settings.
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling adds to a growing list of judicial rebukes of EPA actions under TSCA, and it could have broader implications for how the agency regulates other hazardous chemicals. The court’s insistence on using “best available” human data and on considering economic feasibility may force the EPA to adopt more industry-friendly risk assessments in future rulemakings. The decision also comes amid broader political battles over environmental regulation; for example, the Supreme Court recently weighed in on mail-in voting rules, while other agencies face spending scrutiny and legal challenges.
For now, the immediate practical effect is that methylene chloride paint strippers can remain on the market, though some states have enacted their own restrictions. The EPA has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the ruling or initiate a new rulemaking. Given the Trump administration’s earlier statements about reconsidering the rule, it is possible the agency will simply let the court’s decision stand, effectively ending the federal ban. Health groups are urging the administration to act quickly to protect workers and consumers, but with the chemical industry celebrating, the path forward remains uncertain.
The ruling also highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory agencies and the judiciary over how to interpret statutes that grant broad authority to protect public health. As the EPA grapples with this setback, the debate over chemical safety is likely to intensify, especially given the ongoing struggles of veterans and 9/11 responders exposed to toxic substances—a reminder of the human stakes behind such regulatory decisions.
