Quick Guide to Administrative Hearings
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 11: Three Cheers for Beer: A Discussion of Craig v. Boren
The M&A Word of the Day® from the Book of Jargon® – Global Mergers & Acquisitions Is Revlon Doctrine
Konczal: Dodd-Frank Reforms Get Roughed Up in Court
Following the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) announcement of a new project review process in May 2025, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) issued the first round of DOE grant terminations under the Trump...more
The Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to explain in its Record of Decision why it selected a project alternative that did not meet the development...more
Following its recent opinion in Village of Morrisville v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has once again waded into the issue of when a state waives its certification authority under...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
In a judicial review, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, in Imperial Oil Resources Limited v. Alberta (Minister of Energy), overturned decisions (Decisions) made by a delegate of the Minister of Energy, the Director of...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
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that agencies preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the guidance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) need only to consider the environmental effects of the...more
On June 11, the Supreme Court issued a major decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that could reshape how infrastructure projects are reviewed, approved, and challenged 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, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, a case concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that limits judicial review of...more
In welcome news for developers and stakeholders in new carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) and fossil-fueled energy transition projects, on 22 May 2025, England’s Court of Appeal dismissed an application for...more
Summer’s on the way and we’re closing in on the first anniversary of Labour’s 2024 election victory. In our previous infrastructure planning round-up we closed 2024 by looking forward to the introduction of the Planning and...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 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
Overview - On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. __ (2025), clarifying the scope of judicial deference to agencies’ procedural...more
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Supreme Court fundamentally altered the nature of judicial review of agency decisions involving Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) under the National...more
Supreme Court aims to provide predictability by narrowing the scope of NEPA review - The Supreme Court’s latest ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County marks a significant “course correction” in how...more
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of federal agency review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited National Environmental Policy Act decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. We were not disappointed. ...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
In a significant decision interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado on May 29, 2025. For certain...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 8-0 ruling limited the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the national environmental law that mandates federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed...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
After nearly two decades of silence, the US Supreme Court on May 29, 2025, weighed in on an issue that has tremendous significance for permitting of complex infrastructure and other development projects—the depth and breadth...more
Overview - On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision clarifying the scope of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) for major infrastructure...more