Environmental Law Advisor

Oregon’s win in the first federal trial over a packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law is a practical warning to companies facing the spread of EPR programs: courts may not treat complexity, cost, or multi-state compliance burdens as sufficient grounds to invalidate these laws.

On August 26, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied all petitions for review challenging the portion of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 framework rule for new chemical reviews addressing how persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) are evaluated for exemptions from the premanufacture notice (PMN) process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In a recent Federal Register notice, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is conducting a Section 610 review of its Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products rule.

On August 18, the DC Circuit handed down its decision in Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, unanimously upholding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) — and in doing so, unlocked the law’s powerful enforcement tools against two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds.

The national race to build artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure is colliding with a stubborn local reality: strategically important projects have to be built somewhere.

Infrastructure disputes increasingly turn on a threshold question that many project sponsors assume has already been resolved: Does the governmental actor supporting, permitting, funding, or constructing the project actually possess legal authority to do so?

The US data center sector is in the midst of a historic capital cycle as artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and digital infrastructure demand pushes hyperscalers and colocation providers to commit capital at unprecedented scale.

Businesses often focus on whether a regulation is lawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an inquiry that traditionally turns on whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious. Recent US Supreme Court decisions suggest a different question may come first: whether courts ever reach that analysis at all.

On July 14, a California federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the California Attorney General from enforcing Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), a law regulating recyclability claims on products and packaging.

The US Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County endorsed a narrower vision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), focused on informing agency decisions rather than producing exhaustive analyses of indirect, cumulative, or policy-related impacts.

While it may seem like there are fewer calls of late to “electrify everything,” the legal debate over whether “gas bans” — local ordinances that prohibit use of fossil fuel-powered appliances in new construction — continues.

Products and packaging manufactured for sale or distribution in California after October 4 must either meet recyclability criteria or remove recyclability claims, including the popular “chasing arrows” symbol.

On June 24, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced that it is planning to delay the first-year reporting deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under SB 253 (the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) from August 10 to November 10.

State policymakers are recalibrating how they regulate and incentivize data center development.

On May 28, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that reinstates the longstanding emergency affirmative defense provision under the Clean Air Act’s Title V operating permit programs (the “Emergency AD” rule).

A Will County circuit court ordered the county board to issue permits for six solar energy projects in one of the first decisions applying last month’s landmark Equity Solar appellate ruling.

Classes of children are often named as plaintiffs in climate litigation, with complaints stressing the need for judicial intervention to overcome gridlock in the political branches.

In a significant win for the energy industry, the Maryland Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of three municipal lawsuits alleging that energy companies engaged in deceptive practices related to the promotion of fossil fuels.

For the first time, an Illinois appellate court has held that Illinois counties must issue siting permits to solar facilities that meet certain state standards.

A recent Michigan federal court decision emphasizes the need to review the separateness of corporate entities so that operational issues associated with one entity do not result in potential exposure for others.

A federal court’s recent ruling shields members of a national trade association from Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program pending trial, raising constitutional questions that could affect similar programs in other states.

On February 12, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the elimination of EPA’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for vehicle model years 2012 and newer — a move that will dramatically limit federal government engagement on climate issues.

The popular perception that we are in a relaxed federal enforcement environment should not lull businesses into taking their foot off the gas on compliance activities.

Trump Administration efforts to quash state-driven climate action were recently dealt a setback when a Michigan federal court rejected a federal effort to quash state claims focused on the fossil fuel industry.

Last week, the White House began its interagency review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule to rescind its 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and related vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) standards.