Fifth Circuit Considers Asbestos Ban

In February 2025, lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency defended a March 2024 chrysotile asbestos ban from challenges brought by parties on both sides of the aisle.

Chrysotile asbestos is the only form of asbestos that has continued to be used and imported into the country over the last several years, and the agency issued its rule under the Biden administration after finding that it poses an unreasonable risk to human health. An internal review in recent weeks has apparently allowed the rule to stand, but outsiders continue to challenge it.

The legal objections to the rule come from widely diverse sources. While mesothelioma advocates, including the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, say the ruling did not go far enough and object to the EPA allowing too much time for industry compliance, industry groups argue that the EPA exceeded its authority. The United Steelworkers have asserted that the rule fails to protect chemical industry workers in the same way it does other industries.

A decision is expected in the case later in 2025.

Asbestos and other toxic substance regulation is a relatively recent development in American law. This regulation began in the 1970s when Congress passed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and created the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce these and other laws.

The EPA soon passed rules limiting the release of toxins, including asbestos, into the air and water. Originally, the asbestos exposure standard was 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air. Congress toughened these environmental protection laws in the 1980s, but these new laws did not specifically target asbestos.

In 1989, the EPA unsuccessfully tried to ban chrysotile (white) asbestos. This refined form of asbestos is very easy to bend and shape. However, it is also a crumbly substance that breaks down easily, making it unusually hazardous.

Opponents took the ban to court, ironically enough, in the Fifth Circuit, the same court that is considering the 2024 ban. Opponents successfully used an obscure provision in the Toxic Substances Control Act to overturn the ban.

So, the EPA settled for a partial ban that mostly included schools. However, the government didn’t earmark any money for asbestos testing and remediation. More on that below.

In a related development, the government banned asbestos mining in 2002. That move made asbestos substantially more expensive, making it much less attractive commercially.

Many years later, in 2016, Congress finally closed the TSCA loophole that derailed the 1989 ban. However, due to different political agendas and a few other factors, the EPA didn’t take advantage of this opportunity until 2024.

If the city puts a stop sign on a corner, many drivers will not voluntarily stop. Likewise, many companies will not voluntarily comply with an asbestos ban. An asbestos exposure lawyer forces companies to comply with the law and also obtains fair compensation for exposure victims.

Many residential homes and public buildings were constructed before 1980. So, these structures are probably laced with asbestos. Contained asbestos is harmless. But airborne asbestos causes a number of serious illnesses, such as mesothelioma.

This rare and aggressive form of lung cancer is difficult to diagnose and even more difficult to treat. So, mesothelioma’s fatality rate is much higher than other forms of lung cancer, such as NSCLC (non-small-cell lung cancer).

Demolition and renovation disturbs asbestos fibers and releases them into the air. So does the asbestos removal and remediation process. If workers are not properly protected, they will probably develop a serious illness.

Cross-contamination is an even bigger hazard. Talc-asbestos is probably the best example of this problem.

Talc and asbestos are chemically similar minerals. Therefore, talc and asbestos mines are usually interlaced with one another. Poor quality control practices allow stray asbestos fibers to seep into talcum powder and other talc-containing products, mostly cosmetics.

In the case of talcum powder, regular use caused asbestos fibers to migrate through a woman’s fallopian tubes to her cervix, where the fibers caused cervical cancer. Many observers believe that, by the end of the 21st century, the number of cross-contamination victims may eclipse the number of industrial exposure victims.

Mesothelioma victims need and deserve significant compensation. For a confidential consultation with an experienced nationwide mesothelioma lawyer, contact the Throneberry Law Group. We routinely handle these matters on a nationwide basis.