Podcast - Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA: The Intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law
SCOTUS Clean Air Act Cases: What’s New?
Rewriting the Rules: The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Clean Water Act Permits
On-Demand Webinar | Regulatory Uncertainty and Linear Infrastructure Projects: Where Are We and What’s Ahead?
PFAS: Increasing Regulations and Managing Legal Liability
On-Demand Webinar | Linear Infrastructure Redux: Adapting Your Projects to Meet the New Regulatory Climate
The Current and Future Landscapes of EPA Criminal and Civil Enforcement
On-Demand Webinar | The New NEPA Regulations: A Practical Guide to What You Need to Know
One-on-One with David Fotouhi, Acting General Counsel at the EPA
Volatile Times in Vapor Intrusion Regulation: A Legal and Technical Update
[WEBINAR] Fairly (or Unfairly?) Traceable: Are Discharges Through Groundwater Subject to the Clean Water Act?
[WEBINAR] Update on the California Environmental Quality Act: What’s New for 2018
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to reevaluate its decision not to list two species of Joshua tree—Yucca brevifolia (western...more
On July 9, 2025, in Hammond Power Solutions Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the insurer and finding, under...more
Within this term, the US Supreme Court’s major environmental and administrative focus was on statutory text in its environmental and administrative decisions....more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al. This decision held that agencies are afforded substantial deference in National...more
This week, I discuss with my colleague, Kelly N. Garson, a Senior Associate here at B&C and Regulatory Consultant for The Acta Group (Acta®), B&C’s consulting affiliate, the implications of the demise of Chevron deference,...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 604 U.S. ____ (2025) significantly alters the regulatory landscape for NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act...more
In a contentious 5–2 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has dealt an unprecedented blow to the state’s business and manufacturing sector by ruling that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) can force cleanup of PFAS...more
In its recent decision in Waterkeeper Alliance v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-636 (9th Cir. June 18, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to...more
This alert was originally published on June 3, 2025, and has been revised based on recent developments. Update: On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, No....more
The US Supreme Court on June 16, 2025 granted certiorari for an appeal from a divided opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relating to the federal officer removal statute. The appeal comes after a jury...more
In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., the Supreme Court set out the test for determining the proper venue for judicial review of EPA actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Challenges to...more
On June 24, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to compel the cleanup of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances under...more
On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that clarify a deceptively simple question under the Clean Air Act: Where should lawsuits challenging EPA actions be filed? The rulings – EPA v. Calumet Shreveport...more
On June 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings determining where challenges to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions under the Clean Air Act must be filed. The Court held challenges to EPA actions that are...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions in EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining and Oklahoma v. EPA on June 18, 2025, resolving two related circuit splits regarding proper venue for challenging certain U.S....more
US Supreme Court Clean Air Act (CAA) decisions often result in big-picture changes to administrative law. Two CAA decisions this term deal with CAA’s venue-related provisions which specify where cases challenging US...more
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a federal statute that outlines how federal agencies must review the environmental impacts of their regulatory actions. The regulated community has often viewed NEPA as an...more
In a pair of closely watched decisions issued on June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a critical procedural question under the Clean Air Act (CAA): is the proper venue for judicial review of U.S. Environmental...more
Today, the Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Air Act’s venue framework for judicial review of EPA actions. Under 42 U. S. C. §7607(b)(1), “nationally applicable” EPA actions can be challenged only in the D. C. Circuit,...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, clarifying the standards for judicial review of challenges to agency action under the National Environmental Policy Act...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued an opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al., which narrowed the requirements of environmental review under the National...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court—minus recused Justice Neil Gorsuch—decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the first major NEPA dispute before the Court in 20 years. It’s a really big deal—coverage...more
On May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025) 605 U.S. ____, the Supreme Court gave instruction that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “is a procedural cross-check, not...more
On May 30, the United States District Court for the Central District of California determined that judicial review of whether state response costs are recoverable under Section 107(a)(4)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental...more
On 29 May 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that a “course correction” was needed for cases under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), holding that a law originally meant to be a procedural check to inform...more