The same federal court that struck down the EPA’s asbestos ban in 1991 is now deciding whether the agency’s 2024 chrysotile asbestos rule survives. On June 1, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA, and the central question that dominated the morning was not whether asbestos is dangerous. It was whether the industry challengers have any legal right to be in court at all.
That shift matters. After years of litigation, the people who sued to weaken the rule may no longer have a case the court is willing to hear.
What is the EPA asbestos rule the court is reviewing?
In March 2024, the EPA finalized a rule prohibiting the manufacture, import, processing, distribution, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos. Chrysotile is the only form of asbestos still used and imported in the United States, and it remained present in products such as industrial diaphragms used in chlorine production, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and other friction products.
The rule set phased deadlines for different industries to transition off asbestos, with some uses ending quickly and others given longer windows. It was the first risk management rule finalized under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the law Congress strengthened specifically to give the EPA real authority to regulate dangerous chemicals. The United States was among the last industrialized nations to act. More than 70 countries had already banned asbestos.
Why did industry groups challenge a rule banning a known carcinogen?
Shortly after the rule was finalized, chemical manufacturers and trade associations filed legal challenges arguing that the EPA exceeded its authority. Their core position was that existing workplace exposure limits set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration were sufficient, and that a full ban was unnecessary. The cases were consolidated in the Fifth Circuit.
Much of that opposition has since collapsed. On May 6, 2026, Olin Corporation withdrew its challenge to the rule. Two weeks later, the American Chemistry Council and allied petitioners withdrew their challenge to the EPA’s underlying scientific finding that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health. By the time of oral argument, there was broad agreement among the remaining parties that chrysotile asbestos is in fact dangerous. The two largest producers, Olin and OxyChem, have agreed to stop importing asbestos and are moving toward asbestos-free technology.
What remained was a narrower fight. The American Chemistry Council continued to oppose a ban on asbestos use in chlor-alkali production, the process used to make chlorine, even while accepting the EPA’s risk findings.
What did the Fifth Circuit judges focus on during oral argument?
The judges showed little interest in the competing merits arguments. Industry lawyers argued the EPA went too far by banning the mineral, while public health and union groups argued the 2024 rule did not go far enough. Instead, the panel directed nearly all of its questions to a single issue: standing, the legal requirement that a challenger show a real, concrete injury a court can address.
That focus was set days before the hearing, when the panel asked the parties to be ready to discuss whether the petitioners had satisfied the requirements to bring the suit at all. Judge Leslie Southwick pressed the point directly, noting that the record contained nothing from individuals explaining what their interests were or how they had been injured. With key companies having dropped out and the largest producers already moving away from asbestos, the question of who still has a right to sue moved to the center of the case.
The argument also surfaced what is at stake for federal chemical regulation more broadly. A Justice Department attorney representing the EPA framed the consequence plainly, telling the court that if the agency cannot ban asbestos, it is hard to identify any chemical it could ever ban. That argument speaks to the purpose of the 2016 TSCA amendments, which were written to overcome the legal weaknesses that doomed the EPA’s earlier attempt.
Why does the 1991 decision still matter?
This is the second time the Fifth Circuit has held the fate of a federal asbestos ban. In 1989, the EPA issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule, a comprehensive prohibition on most asbestos products. In Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, the same court vacated most of that rule, a decision that weakened federal chemical authority and allowed asbestos use to continue in this country for decades longer.
The 2016 amendments to TSCA were Congress’s answer to that ruling. They changed the legal standard the EPA must meet and were designed to give the agency firmer ground. A decision upholding the 2024 rule would signal that the new framework works as intended. A decision striking it down, or dismissing the case on standing without reaching the merits, would leave the broader question of the EPA’s authority less settled.
More on the EPA Asbestos Ban and the Fifth Circuit Case
Our ongoing coverage of the legal fight over the EPA chrysotile asbestos rule:
- Chemical Industry Partially Retreats in Fight Over EPA Asbestos Ban
- Fifth Circuit Issues Stay on Challenges to the EPA Asbestos Ban
- EPA to Reconsider the Chrysotile Asbestos Ban: 30-Month Delay
- The EPA Bans Chrysotile Asbestos: What the 2024 Rule Means
What happens next, and what it means for exposed workers and families
The court did not rule from the bench. A precedential decision is expected later in 2026. If the panel finds the challengers lack standing, it could dismiss the case without deciding whether the EPA acted lawfully, leaving the rule in place but the larger legal questions unresolved. If it reaches the merits, the opinion will shape how much authority the EPA has to regulate asbestos and other toxic substances going forward.
For workers and families, the practical reality has not changed. Chrysotile asbestos was used for generations in refineries, shipyards, power plants, construction, and automotive work, and the diseases it causes often take decades to appear. A regulatory ban going forward does not undo past exposure, and it does not affect the rights of people already diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness. But importantly, a ban can protect human health but preventing current and future asbestos exposures
If you or a family member has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer, speaking with an attorney experienced in asbestos litigation can help you understand your legal options.
