Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
- Tenth Circuit Clarifies Diligent Prosecution Bar to Citizen Suits under Clean Air Act
- Eleventh Circuit Allows Federal Officer Removal for EPA-Directed Cleanup
- Supreme Court Holds FIFRA Preempts State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claims Challenging EPA-Approved Labels
- California Federal Court Holds Agencies May Be Liable Under Clean Air Act Citizen Suit Provision
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Agency Action
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- CISWI
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- CLE
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Toxic Torts
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Cost Recovery
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Royalties
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Real Estate
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last month in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s” or the “Agency’s”) May 2024 designation of two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”)—as “hazardous substances” (the “Designation”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or the “Act”). The petitions were filed by industry interest groups that use, transport, or discharge PFOA and PFOS (the “Petitioners”). Read More »
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision on August 3, 2026, which clarified the scope of the diligent prosecution bar to citizen suits under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The decision was a partial victory for the environmental organizations that brought the lawsuit and adds to the body of appellate decisions aiming to elucidate this heavily litigated area of the law. Read More »
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in City of Brunswick v. Honeywell International, Inc., 2026 WL 2224648 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2026), that potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) implementing an EPA-selected CERCLA remedy pursuant to a consent decree may be “acting under” a federal officer for purposes of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The decision may provide a basis for such PRPs to remove related state-law claims to federal court. The decision also holds that an appeal of a remand order involving federal officer removal automatically stays district court proceedings, including the remand order, pending appeal. Read More »
On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant preemption decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require cancer warnings on Roundup’s label beyond those approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court reversed a Missouri judgment awarding more than $1 million to plaintiff John Durnell, who alleged that Monsanto’s Roundup caused his cancer and should have included a cancer warning. Read More »
In a significant decision for Clean Air Act enforcement, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held that citizens may pursue Clean Air Act claims against a state or local air agency in their regulatory capacity for allegedly failing to carry out State Implementation Plan (SIP) obligations. Read More »
In June 2026, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “District Court”) found a Montclair, New Jersey ordinance prohibiting the use of gas-powered leaf blowers to be a valid exercise of state police power not preempted under the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Read More »
In West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc., et al. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court decision to preliminarily enjoin The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) from discharging hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO-DA”)—a Chemours-created PFAS chemical— from its Washington Works facility in excess of its permitted limit. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit took no issue with the district court’s standing analysis, but determined the district court made legal and factual errors in its irreparable harm determination. Read More »
In an Order issued on May 18, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a motion for a stay pending appeal filed by a coalition of environmental groups, who sought to halt the construction of a pipeline project in Virginia and North Carolina. Read More »
In a significant April 2026 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court injunction that had halted operation of an immigration detention facility constructed in the Florida Everglades (“the Facility”). The case, Friends of the Everglades v. Secretary of Homeland Security, No. 25-12873, turned on two threshold issues: (1) whether the plaintiffs challenged a final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and (2) whether the project constituted a major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Eleventh Circuit answered both questions in the negative, concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits and that the preliminary injunction should not have been granted. Read More »
Earlier this month in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the meaning of “relating to” in the federal officer removal statute. In doing so, it vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit that held defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that plaintiffs’ suit was “for or relating to” the acts it performed under the authority of a federal officer. The Court looked to the ordinary meaning of “relating to” across various contexts and held that defendant had shown the instant lawsuit implicated acts “that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.” Read More »
