A recent decision sheds light on the U.S. government’s cleanup obligations in land sales involving former military sites.  In Hamilton Square, LLC v. United States, No. 20-1285 (Fed. Cl. July 15, 2025), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims allowed a key environmental remediation claim to proceed while dismissing others in a suit alleging the Navy breached its obligation to remediate newly discovered petroleum and chloroform contamination at a property in Novato, California. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Breach of Contract, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Court of Federal Claims, Oil and Gas, Pollutants, Remediation, Vapor Intrusion

On July 9^th, 2025, the Eastern District of New York ruled on a series of motions in Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Company, a case brought by the Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) against chemical manufacturers for the alleged contamination of Suffolk’s groundwater supply with 1,4-dioxane (“dioxane”), a chemical classified by the EPA as a “probable human carcinogen.”  Judge Gershon issued an opinion allowing most of the plaintiff’s common law tort claims to proceed to trial while clarifying the standard for expert admissibility under recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, Drinking Water, Evidence, Expert Witness, Groundwater, Negligence, New York, Nuisance, Pollutants, Strict Liability, Trespass, Water

This post was written by MGKF summer associate Kennedy Reardon

On July 17, 2025, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. affirming an order granting summary judgment against ELG Utica Alloys, Inc.’s (“ELG”) in its CERCLA cost recovery suit, on the grounds that the applicable six-year statute of limitations had expired.  The decision is significant because it establishes a rule in the Second Circuit that, for a multi-phase remediation involving a single source of contamination at a single “facility,” the statute of limitations begins to run at the initiation of the first phase of cleanup. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Contamination, Cost Recovery, New York, Remediation, Second Circuit, Superfund

This post was written by MGKF summer associate Ella Souder

In March 2023, the State of New Jersey sued Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) in state court alleging that Dow was responsible for contamination caused by the chemical 1,4-dioxane which was used as an inhibitor in cleaning agents which Dow had sold decades earlier to, among others, the United States Government and military (the “Government”).  Dow removed the case to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under the federal-officer removal statute, claiming that in producing this chemical it was “acting under” the auspices of the Government.  The District Court remanded the matter back to state court and on June 11, 2025 the Third Circuit affirmed the remand, holding that simply providing a product to the Government, even if the product complied with government specifications, was insufficient to implicate the federal-officer removal statute. See New Jersey v. Dow Chemical Co., 2025 WL 1646963 (3^rd Cir. 2025). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, New Jersey, Removal, Third Circuit

On June 6, 2025, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Appalachian Voices et al. v. FERC that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of an extension of the construction deadline for Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s (MVP) MVP Southgate Project (the “Southgate Project”) was permissible, denying environmental groups’ petitions for review. This case potentially forecasts future judicial treatment of agency action in the aftermath of the Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision, and signals how courts may treat future challenges aimed at delaying development in light of recent curtailment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Agency Action, Chevron Deference, D.C. Circuit, FERC, Loper Bright, NEPA, Oil and Gas

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court decided EPA v Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC et al., and its companion case Oklahoma et al. v. EPA, clarifying the tripartite framework for determining venue in Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) litigation.  Looking at the CAA's venue provision (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)), the Court explained that if a challenge is to an “nationally applicable” EPA action the challenge should be directed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the matter ends there.  But, if the challenge is to a “locally or regionally applicable” EPA action, then typically those challenges belong in the relevant regional Circuit Court.  However, when a “locally or regionally applicable” action falls within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, which requires the action be (1) “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and (2) accompanied by an EPA finding to the same effect, the Court instructed that the matter should be routed back to the D.C. Circuit.  Applying this understanding of CAA's venue provision, the Court reached different conclusions in Calumet and Oklahoma, finding respectively that the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applied in one instance and not in the other. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, Clean Air Act, D.C. Circuit, EPA, Federal Procedure, Procedure, Refinery, Renewable Fuel Standard, State Implementation Plans, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Venue

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued it opinion in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, holding fuel producers had standing—and had specifically demonstrated redressability—to challenge California-specific regulations EPA approved under the Clean Air Act.  The Court’s opinion  reversing and remanding to the D.C. Circuit left the merits of the case for another day, but acknowledged that the regulations at issue may be rescinded shortly, mooting most, if not all, of the parties’ controversy. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Air, California, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, D.C. Circuit, Emissions, EPA, Federal Procedure, Greenhouse Gas, Legislation, Oil and Gas, Standing, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, reversing the D.C. Circuit’s determination that the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) issued by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (the “Board”) in connection with an approximately 88-mile railroad line in northeastern Utah violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, concluded the NEPA question presented “is not close” and the Board was “absolutely correct” in declining to evaluate “environmental effects from separate projects upstream or downstream from the project at issue” in the EIS.    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Administrative Procedures Act, D.C. Circuit, Decisions of Note, Federal Circuit, Loper Bright, NEPA, Oil and Gas, Pipelines, Railroad, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

In March 2024, the County of Bucks filed a controversial suit under state law against a number of large oil companies alleging the County was injured because of the companies’ deceptive conduct with respect to their impact on climate change. The Defendants filed various preliminary objections including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that despite the County’s effort to focus the complaint on fraudulent practices, the case at bottom alleged harm from severe weather allegedly due to air emissions, which are governed exclusively by federal law. On May 16, 2025, the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas issued an opinion agreeing with the Defendants and dismissing the case entirely.  See Bucks County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024-01836 (Bucks Cty. Com. Pl. May 16, 2025). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Standing

On May 1, 2025, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California evaluated a settlement agreement between a long-time generator of hazardous substances, an innocent plaintiff, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), and found that it met the requirements as a good faith agreement under both the California Code of Civil Procedure and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  See Maxim L Properties v. Moyer Products, Ind., 2025 WL 1261419.  The court ruled that a settlement agreement that, among other things, accounts for the “rough approximation” of liability is generally satisfactory in both California and under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, California, Certification, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Superfund