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

In a recent case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two plaintiffs alleged that Danone Waters of America, LLC (“Danone”) violated Illinois and California state statutes by labeling Evian spring water “natural” despite the presence of microplastics which leach from the plastic bottles into the water.  Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Citizens Suit, Greenwashing, Illinois, Preemption

In California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, 89 F. 4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit was tasked with determining whether the City of Berkeley’s attempt to prohibit the use of natural gas pipelines in new buildings through a local ordinance conflicted with the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).  That statute expressly preempts state and local governments from enacting regulations restricting energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens.  After evaluating the parties’ arguments, the court concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the EPCA based on the text, structure, and context of that statute.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Climate Change, Natural Gas, Preemption

In a recent en banc decision out of the Eleventh Circuit, the Court found that the panel had used an improper standard in holding that a state law failure to warn cause of action was not preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and after clarifying the appropriate inquiry, sent the matter back to the panel for further consideration.  In the case, the plaintiff averred that after years of using the popular weedkiller, Roundup, he developed cancer, which he claims Monsanto failed to adequately warn consumers was a risk of using that product.  Carson v. Monsanto Company, 72 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023).  Monsanto responded that plaintiff’s Georgia state law claims were expressly or impliedly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approved a label for Roundup which lacked a cancer warning, and classified Roundup’s principal ingredient, glyphosate, as “not likely to be carcinogenic.”     Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Eleventh Circuit, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, Georgia, Preemption, Toxic Torts

On May 18, 2022 in York et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Guidance and Electronics Co. Inc. et al., No. 21-cv-03251 (W.D. Mo.), a Missouri federal court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint alleging negligence, nuisance and trespass from alleged groundwater contamination, finding the claims were preempted by an existing consent decree. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Injunction, Missouri, Negligence, Nuisance, Preemption, Property Value, Superfund, Trespass, Water

This Blog Post was authored by Timothy Johnson, a summer associate.

Earlier this month, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) erred in its dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal of the approval of a compressor station plan by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Cole v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Env't Prot., No. 1577 C.D. 2019, 2021 WL 2420667 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). In doing so, the Court held that Section 717r(d)(1) of the federal Natural Gas Act, which provides that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over “civil actions” for review of an approval or denial of a permit or approval required by federal law, does not preclude state administrative agency review of state permitting decisions. Accordingly, the EHB’s review of the matter was not preempted. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Air, Citizen Suit, Clean Air Act, EHB, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, Hearing Board, Natural Gas Act, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Pipelines, Preemption, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Earlier this month, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Southern District of New York’s ruling that state common law claims against oil companies for costs resulting from climate change were either preempted by the Clean Air Act, or, in the case of foreign emissions, represented a non-justiciable political question. See City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81, 2021 WL 1216541 (2d Cir. 2021). The decision represents the first time an appellate court has had the opportunity to rule on the merits of the federal preemption defense raised by defendants. Although there are active lawsuits in other jurisdictions where plaintiffs have made substantially similar claims, decisions in the other active climate change suits thus far have been restricted to the issue of whether climate change suits brought in state court were properly removed to federal court. The decisions in those cases, therefore, have not addressed the merits of the federal preemption defense. (The Supreme Court is predicted to issue a ruling on the removal issue by the end of its term in June. See Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., et al., 388 F. Supp. 3d 538, 548 (D. Md.), as amended (June 20, 2019), aff’d, 952 F.3d 452 (4th Cir.), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 222 (2020)). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, New York, Preemption, Second Circuit

On February 18, 2021, the Court in Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, et al., v. Keystone Protein Co., No. 1:19-CV-01307, 2021 WL 632734, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2021), denied a factory owner’s motion for summary judgment based on its holding that the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law (“PCSL”) are not “roughly comparable” statutes. In so deciding, the plaintiffs’ citizen’s suit, alleging violations under the CWA, was allowed to proceed notwithstanding that the defendant factory had settled litigation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) for the same violations under the PCSL. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Clean Streams Law, Clean Water Act, Effluents, Enforcement Action, NPDES, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Preemption, Water

On February 21, 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court dismissed a claim brought by a group of municipalities alleging that a Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulation governing the siting of gas meters failed to sufficiently protect historic resources under Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, also known as the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA). See City of Lancaster, et al. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, No. 251 MD 2019 (Pa. Cmwlth. Feb. 21, 2020). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Energy, Environmental Rights Amendment, Historic Resources, Natural Gas, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Public Utilities Commission, Real Estate, Residential, Utilities

This Post was authored by Andrew LeDonne, a MGKF summer associate. 

On July 2, 2018, the State of Rhode Island (“RI”) filed suit against twenty-one oil and gas companies in an attempt to hold these organizations liable for climate change impacts RI has and will experience. The defendants (Chevron Corp., et al.) removed the case to federal court. On August 17, 2018, RI filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On Monday, July 22, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted RI’s motion to remand. The remand order was stayed for sixty days for the court to consider whether a further stay pending appeal is warranted. Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., 2019 WL 3282007 (D.R.I. July 22, 2019). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Emissions, Federal Procedure, First Circuit, Nuisance, Oil and Gas, Preemption, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction