Environmental and science advocacy groups 1 have sued EPA and other agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for removing without notice “vitally important webpages” that served as sources of information about environmental justice and climate change. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-01112 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). The groups allege that the removal is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and violates the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which mandates that every agency “ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency’s public information” and must “provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products.”
The groups claim that the agencies, in late January and February 2025, deleted from their websites the following environmental justice (EJ) and climate change tools and pages without notice or a “reasoned explanation”:
- EJScreen – an interactive mapping tool that provided data on local pollution burdens, demographic indicators, and environmental justice indicators.
- Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) – an interactive mapping tool that identified communities facing disproportionate environmental burdens.
- Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool – an interactive mapping tool that helped users understand and compare the cost of energy relative to income for various geographic regions, including census tracts, cities, counties, states, and tribal lands.
- Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer – an interactive mapping tool that compiled location data based on transportation insecurity, climate and disaster risk burden, environmental burden, health vulnerability, and social vulnerability.
- Future Risk Index – an interactive mapping tool that provided projected economic losses due to climate change at the county level, based on different greenhouse gas emission scenarios and environmental hazards.
The complaint alleges that removal of the online tools is “causing and will cause substantial harm” to the groups because it hampers their ability to convey accurate information on impacts to human health and the environment from pollution. The complaint also alleges that without access to alternative sources of information that provide the same level of reliability and functionality as the removed webpages, the groups “must now either expend additional time and resources to determine how to serve their target populations or face a greater risk that their investment of time, money, and resources will go to naught.” The groups request the court to declare that the agencies’ removal of the tools violates the APA and PRA, to order the agencies to restore the removed webpages, and grant any other relief the court deems appropriate.
State agencies and industry will also have an interest in the outcome of the litigation. Many state agencies have relied on these EJ tools, particularly EJScreen, to help incorporate EJ considerations into agency actions such as permitting, both to address former federal requirements and those independently arising from state law. Removal of these tools has led some state agencies to reevaluate sources that may be used to address the data gap. Other states have developed their own state-level EJ mapping tools. In addition, some industry actors have used these EJ tools for their own purposes, including sustainability reports and community engagement.
Liskow will be monitoring this litigation as well as other legal challenges to the new administration’s rules and policies on Liskow’s The Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub. For more information on industry impacts arising under the new administration, please contact Liskow attorneys Greg Johnson, Clare Bienvenu, and Colin North.
1 The groups include Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Integrity Project, and California Communities against Toxics.