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 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
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
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
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
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, 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
In a highly unusual unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2025 that federal agencies are entitled to “substantial judicial deference” with respect to how they review projects subject to the National...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion that clarifies the scope of environmental effects analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requires substantial judicial deference to...more
In a significant decision issued on May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Surface Transportation Board (the Board) was entitled to substantial deference under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and...more
On May 29, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that dramatically changes the way courts scrutinize federal agencies’ environmental reviews under the...more
Readers of this blog will recall our recent discussion concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the long-standing doctrine of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v....more
The Law Court recently issued a decision in Eastern Maine Conservation Initiative v. Board of Environmental Protection that contains an enlightening discussion of what an agency must consider—as opposed to what an agency may...more
California Fish and Game Code Section 5937 has long been a subject of scholarly debate with uncertainty in its application. In a published opinion filed on April 2, 2025, California’s Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate...more
We begin with a word from your sponsor. After enduring several generative AI tutorials, we urge you to keep on reading Energy and the Law. Why? Our blog is more accurate, at least a little “fun”, offers insightful musical...more
In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to impose so-called "end-result" requirements in NPDES permits. These "end-result" requirements...more
On April 2, 2025, California’s Fifth Appellate District issued a decision in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield (April 2, 2025, F087487) (2025 WL 98443). The Court held the “self-executing” reasonableness requirement...more
On April 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal for California’s Fifth Appellate District issued its decision in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield, 2025 S.O.S. 909. That case held that courts must apply the reasonableness...more