Articles Posted in Environmental

Posted
by , and

Coalitions of Republican-led states, industry associations led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and, most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice are testing “climate superfund” laws that aim to recover billions from carbon majors for climate adaptation costs. Recent rulings in lawsuits challenging the New York and Vermont statutes have split cases across courts and reached opposite outcomes on intervention: In New York, cases are being split between the Northern and Southern Districts and intervention efforts by nonprofits have been blocked, while in Vermont, the district court has allowed environmental organizations to join the defense of the statutes in two cases.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

This post reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s significant regulatory and administrative law decisions from the Court’s 2024 Term and previews cases on the docket for Fall 2025. While the term produced no true “blockbusters,” the Court displayed particular concern with how lower federal courts have been applying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and it clarified the already complex judicial review provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). At the same time, the Court declined invitations to revisit contentious issues surrounding CAA citizen suits and avoided intervening in the wave of state-law climate change litigation. Consistent with its current composition, the Court continues to take a conservative approach, closely hewing to statutory text and structure.

Our review is organized in three parts: first, environmental and energy law cases; second, administrative law rulings that delineate the boundaries of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); third, we discuss the environmental, energy and administrative law cases the Court has agreed to hear in its October 2025 Term.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed granting the State of Texas  primary enforcement authority—commonly referred to as “primacy”—over the permitting and regulation of Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This would authorize the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) to regulate the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) through Class VI wells—an essential component of carbon capture and storage (CCS) infrastructure.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

In a closely watched opinion issued on May 16, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court in Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Undergrounds Services Markham, LLC, — S.W.3d —, No. 22-0878, 2025 WL 1415892 (Tex. May 16, 2025) resolved a long-uncertain issue of subsurface property rights in the context of salt dome mining. The Court held that, unless a deed provides otherwise, subsurface voids created by salt mining operations are owned by the surface estate holder, not the mineral interest holder. By rejecting a salt-specific rule, the Court harmonized ownership principles across subsurface formations, applying a uniform rule regardless of the type of mineral removed.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

City and County of San Francisco v. EPA (March 4, 2025)
In the first major environmental decision by the Court in the 2024 Term, the Court’s analysis of the Clean Water Act concluded that there was no provision in the Act supporting the imposition by EPA of an ambiguous water quality standard. Indeed, the majority lamented the absence of any concrete plan to achieve compliance. In addition, the Act’s “permit shield,” that deems a permittee to be in compliance with the law if it is adhering to the terms of its permit, could be imperiled by this new standard. (Interestingly, the opinion does not mention the recent revocation of the Chevron doctrine, which placed many agency determinations beyond the reach of the reviewing courts.) There were four dissenters, led by Justice Barrett, who was persuaded that a receiving water quality determination permit condition was consistent with the Court’s review of the CWA.

The city of San Francisco owns and operates a complex wastewater treatment facility that is subject to a municipal Clean Water Act NPDES permit issued by EPA. However, the latest permit renewal contains new provisions that make the permittee “responsible for the quality of the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants.” The Supreme Court, holds that this new requirement is not authorized by the text of the Act. Moreover, even if a permittee “punctiliously” follows every requirement of the permit, if the quality of the receiving water falls below the applicable standard—which the permit does not set forth in any particularity—the Court suggests that the city could be heavily penalized for such a transgression even though it was never obligated by the permit to take any specific steps other than those it undertook.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

Even as the Trump administration moves to block state and local climate liability efforts, states and municipalities continue to advance lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for harms associated with climate change. Most recently, the State of Hawaii initiated a climate deception lawsuit, and the City of Charleston, South Carolina, submitted a briefing in a pending case—each alleging that the fossil fuel industry engaged in a decades-long campaign to mislead the public about the risks of fossil fuel consumption and climate change. Both developments come as the Trump administration escalates its opposition to such suits, issuing on April 8 an executive order (EO), Protecting American Energy From State Overreach, targeting and filing lawsuits making constitutional challenges to state-led climate litigation and legislative actions—including a preemptive action against Hawaii just days before the state’s filing.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) steps back from defending its March 2024 Climate Disclosure Rule, companies face growing uncertainty in navigating an increasingly fragmented and uncertain landscape of state and international mandates—with no uniform standards in sight. This development signals a broader shift under the Trump administration, which has prioritized deregulation, withdrawn support for federal disclosure mandates, and signaled opposition toward state-level requirements. The resulting regulatory divide leaves companies with a patchwork of emerging rules and limited guidance on how to harmonize compliance across jurisdictions.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a series of federal lawsuits against four states—New York, Vermont, Michigan and Hawaii—alleging that recent legislative and enforcement efforts to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate change unlawfully interfere with federal authority. The lawsuits, filed on April 30 and May 1, challenge two distinct forms of state-led climate action: (1) enacted climate superfund statutes in New York and Vermont, and (2) announced plans by Michigan and Hawaii to bring climate change litigation against fossil fuel companies under state tort law.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

Data centers use various chemicals that have recently been the focus of regulatory efforts at the federal and state level. The historic or future use of these chemicals may create liabilities, obligations, or new costs for both existing and planned data centers.

Continue Reading ›