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 »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizens Suit, Clean Water Act, Contamination, Drinking Water, Fourth Circuit, Injunction, Permits, PFAS, Pollutants, Standing, Water

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson entities and Kenvue, Inc. concerning the presence of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in Band-Aid products on grounds of standing. This case, Jo Aronstein, et al. v. Kenvue, Inc. et al., is one of many class action lawsuits that have been filed in recent years concerning PFAS in consumer products and offers some insight into how courts are approaching these suits in various jurisdictions. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, New Jersey, PFAS, Pollutants, Standing, Water

Earlier this month, a federal district court in California certified a class claiming economic injury caused by alleged misrepresentations regarding pet food ingredients.  The class alleges that the pet food advertises its ingredients as healthful when in fact the products contained allegedly harmful chemicals, including PFAS. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Causation, Class Actions, Damages, PFAS, Standing

On January 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (“TCEQ”) approval of a third extension of the construction deadline for the Texas LNG Port of Brownsville liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminal. The Court held that although environmental justice advocates had standing to challenge the extension, TCEQ’s executive director acted within her delegated authority and the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence under Texas administrative law. The ruling, South Texas Environmental Justice Network v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality et al., Case No. 24-60580, clarifies the procedural and substantive standards governing construction-deadline extensions for New Source Review (“NSR”) permits under Texas law and reinforces agency discretion when permittees satisfy the express requirements of the applicable regulation. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Citizen Suit, Energy, Fifth Circuit, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Permits, Standing, Texas

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied a motion by several environmental organizations seeking to intervene in a multistate constitutional challenge to New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (“CCSA” or the “Act”) – a landmark 2024 statute designed to recover climate adaptation costs from major fossil fuel producers. The statute (N.Y. Env’t Conservation Law §§ 76-0101, et seq.) has drawn national attention as one of the more aggressive state-level attempts to assign financial responsibility for climate impacts.  For background on the CCSA, see my Special Alert post. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Intervention, Legislation, New York, Oil and Gas, Second Circuit, Standing

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

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 July 18, 2024, in Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, No. 85 MAP 2022, 2024 WL 3450536 (Pa. July 18, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the denial of three nonprofit organizations’ application to intervene in the litigation challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regulation implementing Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (the RGGI Regulation).  After rejecting several arguments regarding the appealability of the order denying intervention, the Court found that the nonprofits’ interest in defending the RGGI Regulation under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA) was not adequately represented by the PADEP and therefore the lower court erred in denying intervention.  Because of this ruling, the three nonprofit organizations (Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Clean Air Council, and the Sierra Club) (Nonprofits) are now able to pursue an appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s final order permanently enjoining the RGGI Regulation from going into effect.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Environmental Rights Amendment, Greenhouse Gas, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Intervention, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rulemaking, Standing

The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed the standing requirements for a procedural-rights claim, in this case one arising from an agency’s alleged failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).  In a split 2-1 decision in Center for a Sustainable Coast v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the court held that standing to challenge an agency’s alleged violation of NEPA does not require a showing that a procedural do-over would necessarily redress a substantive injury. No. 22-11079, 2024 WL 1918733 (11^th Cir. May 2, 2024). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, NEPA, Permits, Standing

On September 14, 2023, in Conservation Law Foundation v. Academy Bus, a Massachusetts District Court held that the members of the Conservation Law Foundation (the “Foundation”) lacked standing to challenge the idling of buses under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).  Conservation Law Found. v. Acad. Express, LLC., No. 20-10032-WGY, 2023 WL 5984517, at *1 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2023). Specifically, the court held that simply breathing in polluted air, without any concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant, is not sufficient to prove an actual injury under the CAA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Citizens Suit, Clean Air Act, Emissions, HAPs, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Odors, Standing