EPA’s Methylene Chloride Ban Is Vacated — Is the Chemical Legal Again? — East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA, No. 24-60227

Methylene chloride’s ban just got more complicated. On September 15, 2026, the Fifth Circuit didn’t just pause EPA’s 2024 rule — it granted the industry petitioners’ request for review, vacated the rule and its risk determination, and sent the whole thing back to EPA. If you searched this because you heard “the ban was overturned,” you’re not wrong. But it’s not that simple, and a lot of what you’ve read online is already out of date.

EPA Methylene Chloride Rule — Key Facts

Field	Detail
What was struck down	EPA’s 2024 risk management rule and risk determination for methylene chloride
Case name	East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA
Case number	No. 24-60227, consolidated with No. 24-60256
Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Ruling date	September 15, 2026
Who challenged the rule	American Chemistry Council, East Fork Enterprises, Inc., and Epic Paint Company (“Industry Petitioners”); Sierra Club filed a separate, opposing petition
Law at issue	Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6; Administrative Procedure Act
Current legal stage	Vacated and remanded to EPA — not a final resolution
What’s still banned	EPA’s separate 2019 rule banning methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removers, which the court did not touch
Sierra Club’s petition	Denied by the same panel
Last Updated	September 22, 2026

Every sentence below answers one question: is methylene chloride still restricted, does this affect you, and what should you actually do.

Who’s Fighting Over Methylene Chloride and Why?

Methylene chloride (also called dichloromethane) is an industrial solvent used in paint strippers, degreasers, adhesives, and some pharmaceutical manufacturing. It’s also linked to liver cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, and death, according to EPA’s own findings. The paint and chemical companies challenging the rule — East Fork Enterprises and Epic Paint — manufacture products that contain methylene chloride and argued the ban would gut their business over risk findings they say were exaggerated. The American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade group, joined them. On the other side, the Sierra Club argued EPA’s rule wasn’t strict enough for people living near facilities that release the chemical.

What Did the Court Actually Decide Between 2024 and 2026?

EPA finalized its ban on May 8, 2024, prohibiting most consumer, commercial, and industrial uses of methylene chloride, with a compliance deadline of April 28, 2026 for most industrial uses. East Fork and Epic Paint filed their petition for review within days, on May 10, 2024. The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in June 2025, and the panel spent over a year on the case before ruling.

The court’s reasoning is the part most coverage is skipping. It found EPA lacked legal authority under TSCA to declare a chemical unreasonably risky “as a whole” instead of evaluating each individual use of it separately. It also found EPA acted unlawfully when it stopped assuming workers wear personal protective equipment, calling the agency’s justification for that shift “remarkably self-contradictory”. On top of that, the court said EPA’s approach “more closely approximate[d] the precautionary principle than the statute’s ‘unreasonable risk’ standard” — meaning EPA treated almost any risk as reason enough to ban, rather than proving the risk was actually unreasonable under the law.

That’s a technical loss for EPA on how it built the rule, not a scientific finding that methylene chloride is safe. The panel didn’t rule the chemical harmless — it ruled the process EPA used to justify banning it was flawed.

If EPA had followed the narrower, use-by-use approach the court says the law requires, this ruling might never have happened.

Does This Mean Methylene Chloride Is Legal Again?

Partly, and only for now. Here’s the honest breakdown:

• Manufacturing, processing, and industrial/commercial use restrictions from the 2024 rule are vacated — meaning, as of the ruling, they’re not currently enforceable in their 2024 form.
• The Workplace Chemical Protection Program’s stricter exposure limits from the 2024 rule go with it.
• EPA’s 2019 rule banning methylene chloride in consumer paint strippers sold to the public was not challenged in this case and remains in effect.
• OSHA’s separate, older workplace exposure limits for methylene chloride are unaffected by this ruling — they predate the 2024 TSCA rule entirely.
• The case was remanded, not closed. EPA can try again with a narrower, use-by-use rule that follows the court’s reasoning.

So if you’re a consumer buying a paint stripper off a shelf, the 2019 ban on that specific product is still standing. If you work somewhere that manufactures, processes, or industrially uses methylene chloride, the added 2024 protections are currently off the table while EPA regroups.

That gap between “still banned for consumers” and “no longer restricted for industry” is exactly where confusion is spreading fastest — and it’s the detail most other coverage is glossing over.

What Happens Next?

EPA has a few paths, and no public deadline has been set for which one it picks:

1. EPA could appeal. It can ask the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case (en banc) or petition the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither outcome is confirmed as of this writing.
2. EPA could rewrite the rule. The court’s opinion tells EPA exactly what it needs to fix — evaluate each use of methylene chloride separately, properly account for PPE, and tighten its definition of “unreasonable risk.” A rewritten rule would go through proposal and public comment again, which typically takes well over a year.
3. EPA could do nothing for now. Nothing forces the agency to act on a fixed timeline, so the current gap in industrial-use protections could persist for a while.
4. Watch the ripple effects. Legal analysts note the decision could affect other pending TSCA cases, including a separate ongoing challenge to EPA’s asbestos rule, since it addresses how EPA is allowed to define “unreasonable risk” chemical-wide.

There’s no consumer claim to file here — this isn’t a settlement, and there’s no compensation fund tied to this ruling. If you or someone you know has already been harmed by methylene chloride exposure — through a job, a paint-stripping project, or a specific product — that’s a separate legal question from this case, and it usually falls under product liability or workplace toxic-exposure law rather than this TSCA litigation.

Fifth Circuit Methylene Chloride Ruling — Full Timeline

Milestone	Date
EPA’s first paint-stripper ban (consumer use only)	March 27, 2019
EPA proposed the broader risk management rule	May 3, 2023
EPA finalized the 2024 rule	May 8, 2024
Industry Petitioners filed petition for review	May 10, 2024
Sierra Club filed separate petition	UNVERIFIED — exact filing date not confirmed from a named primary source
Cases consolidated	UNVERIFIED — exact consolidation date not confirmed
Opening briefs filed	October 9, 2024 (industry brief)
Oral argument held	June 3, 2025
Fifth Circuit ruling issued	September 15, 2026
Next scheduled action	UNVERIFIED — EPA has not publicly announced next steps as of this writing

Frequently Asked Questions — EPA Methylene Chloride Ruling, No. 24-60227

Is methylene chloride banned right now?

Partially. The 2019 consumer paint-stripper ban is still active. The broader 2024 industrial and commercial restrictions were vacated by the Fifth Circuit on September 15, 2026, and are not currently enforceable in their original form.

Can I still sue over methylene chloride exposure?

This appellate case is about EPA’s rulemaking authority, not individual injury claims. A separate exposure or product liability claim is a different legal path with its own requirements, and it isn’t affected by this ruling.

Why did the court strike down EPA’s rule?

The court found EPA exceeded its authority by judging methylene chloride’s risk “as a whole” instead of by individual use, and that it wrongly assumed workers don’t wear protective equipment without evidence to support that assumption.

Did the Sierra Club win anything?

No. The same panel denied the Sierra Club’s petition, which had argued the opposite — that EPA’s rule wasn’t protective enough for people near facilities that release the chemical.

Will EPA appeal the decision?

As of this writing, EPA has not publicly stated whether it will appeal or begin rewriting the rule. Both options remain open.

Does this affect OSHA’s workplace exposure limits?

No. OSHA’s methylene chloride exposure standards exist separately from this TSCA rule and were not part of this case.

Could this ruling affect other EPA chemical bans?

Legal analysts say yes — the decision’s reasoning on how EPA must define “unreasonable risk” could reach other pending TSCA cases, including litigation over EPA’s asbestos rule.

What should I do if I’m concerned about exposure at work?

Ask your employer what protective equipment and monitoring are currently required, since the added 2024 protections are on hold. If you believe you’ve already been harmed by past exposure, a toxic-exposure or product liability attorney — not this case — is the right starting point.

Sources Used in This Article

• Fifth Circuit opinion — East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA, No. 24-60227, decided September 15, 2026: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60227-CV0.pdf
• Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. — case analysis and procedural history, September 21, 2026: https://www.lawbc.com/appellate-court-grants-industry-petitioners-petition-for-review-and-vacates-methylene-chloride-rule-and-risk-determination/
• Squire Patton Boggs — counsel-of-record case summary: https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/news/fifth-circuit-vacates-epa-s-methylene-chloride-rule/
• Toxic-Free Future — press statement, September 16, 2026: https://toxicfreefuture.org/press-room/court-overturns-critical-epa-protections-from-deadly-methylene-chloride/
• EPA — final rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 39254, May 8, 2024: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/08/2024-09606/methylene-chloride-regulation-under-the-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca
• Verdant Law — briefing and oral argument coverage: https://www.verdantlaw.com/briefs-filed-in-sweeping-challenge-to-epas-methylene-chloride-rule/ and https://www.verdantlaw.com/fifth-circuit-questions-epas-methylene-chloride-rule-in-landmark-tsca-case/

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Fifth Circuit’s published opinion, Bergeson & Campbell’s case analysis, and EPA’s Federal Register filings, as of September 22, 2026. Last Updated: September 22, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.