News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation Environmental Litigation Government Agencies

Morgan Lewis

Supreme Court to Resolve Federal Officer Removal Circuit Split in WWII Contracts Case

Morgan Lewis on

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

Stinson LLP

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds State's Authority to Regulate PFAS Without Formal Rulemaking

Stinson LLP on

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

Beveridge & Diamond PC

Supreme Court Clarifies Venue Requirements for Clean Air Act Actions

Beveridge & Diamond PC on

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

Stoel Rives - Environmental Law Blog

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County: Agencies Granted Substantial Deference in Assessing Project Scope and...

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

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Supreme Court Issues First Major NEPA Ruling in Two Decades

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

Nossaman LLP

The End of “End-Result” Permit Limitations in Clean Water Act Permits

Nossaman LLP on

On March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which it held that “end-result” requirements routinely imposed by the U.S....more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Pruning NEPA’s Branches: The Supreme Court Reshapes Environmental Reviews for Major Actions

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Over the last half century, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require federal agencies to study an ever-growing range of indirect effects and impacts when approving large...more

Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law

Supreme Court Holds That Agencies Have “Substantial” Discretion to Omit Upstream and Downstream Projects from Environmental...

On May 29, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court (voting 8-0, with Justice Gorsuch recused) held that federal agencies need not consider the environmental effects of “upstream” and “downstream” projects that are separate in time or...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Supreme Court Curbs the Scope of NEPA Reviews in Landmark Decision: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County,...

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

In the first major National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) case to reach the Supreme Court in almost two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v....more

Allen Matkins

“A Course Correction”: Supreme Court Reinforces Agency Deference and Narrows the Scope of Environmental Effects that Agencies Must...

Allen Matkins on

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of projects that they carry out, fund, or approve — does not...more

Hanson Bridgett

The Supreme Court Takes Aim at NEPA

Hanson Bridgett on

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al., one of the most high-profile National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, cases to reach...more

Winstead PC

Trump Administration Redefines “Harm” Under The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Winstead PC on

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the “Services”) proposed to rescind their longstanding regulatory definition of “harm”, which has for decades served...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Supreme Court Restores Agency Deference In NEPA Reviews

On May 29, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. that affirmed agency deference in review of environmental documents...more

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard,...

Definition of Harm/Endangered Species Act: EarthJustice Comments Addressing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Rule

The environmental organization Earthjustice submitted May 19th comments to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery Service (collectively, “Services”) addressing their proposed rescission of the...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

May v. Must – The Scope of Agency Permitting Review under Statutory Standards

Pierce Atwood LLP on

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

Hanson Bridgett

Court Reaffirms Constitution’s Role in Water Use Disputes

Hanson Bridgett on

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

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide