Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

A private company operating a hotel sought the renewal of a one-year, revocable state land permit for property fronting its hotel. A member of the public, who had long used the area for recreation, objected to the permit's renewal, particularly the practice of presetting hotel lounge chairs, which he argued deterred public use. He requested a formal contested case hearing on the permit renewal, asserting a property interest in the recreational and environmental quality of the public land. The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) denied his request for such a hearing, instead allowing only written and oral testimony at a public meeting.The objector appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which upheld the BLNR's denial, finding that he had been afforded due process through the public meeting process. On further appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed, holding that the appellant had a constitutionally protected interest in a clean and healthful environment and was entitled to a contested case hearing before the permit could be renewed. Because the permit had expired, the ICA remanded the case to the circuit court to determine what relief, if any, remained available. The ICA granted costs but denied the appellant’s request for attorney fees under the private attorney general (PAG) doctrine, reasoning that the requirements for such fees were unmet since the scope of relief was not yet determined.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i vacated the ICA’s denial of attorney fees. The court held that the PAG doctrine does not require the prevailing party to obtain final relief before becoming eligible for attorney fees. Determining that all three prongs of the PAG test were met, the court remanded the matter for the ICA to determine the reasonableness of the appellant’s attorney fees and whether the hotel company was liable for them. View "Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources." on Justia Law

Decabromodiphenyl Ether (decaBDE) is a flame retardant used in numerous products, including electronics, vehicles, and appliances, and is known for its persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic effects on human and environmental health. In response to concerns about such chemicals, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, adding a subsection mandating expedited risk-management rules for certain chemicals, including decaBDE. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated rules in 2021 and amended them in 2024, regulating some uses of decaBDE but declining to regulate exposures arising from recycling, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge in several contexts.Following the 2021 rule, several petitioners challenged the EPA’s approach in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The EPA voluntarily sought a remand to reconsider aspects of its rule, which the Ninth Circuit granted. After seeking additional public comment, the EPA issued the 2024 amendments, which still did not address all the petitioners’ concerns, particularly regarding the areas of recycling, disposal, wastewater discharges, and sewage sludge. The petitioners renewed their challenge, arguing that EPA’s failure to regulate these areas violated TSCA’s mandate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the EPA’s decisions not to further regulate decaBDE exposures in recyclable articles, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge were not supported by substantial evidence as required by TSCA. The court held that EPA could not justify a failure to regulate based on low exposure levels or general policy preferences and found the agency had not adequately addressed evidence in the record. The court granted the petition for review, remanded the rule to the EPA for renewed rulemaking and further proceedings, but left the 2024 rule in place during the remand. View "YUROK TRIBE V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY" on Justia Law

The case concerns two organizations that advocate for environmental health and public employee interests. They filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging that the EPA failed to meet its statutory obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address risks associated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a harmful chemical formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. The plaintiffs argued that, by March 2023, the EPA had sufficient information about the dangers of PFOA to trigger a nondiscretionary duty to act under TSCA section 4(f), and, alternatively, a duty under section 7(a)(2) to pursue enforcement actions against a specific company involved in the fluorination process.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the suit. It found that the EPA had fulfilled any nondiscretionary duty under section 4(f) by publishing a request for public comment, making the primary claim moot. Regarding section 7(a)(2), the court doubted that it imposed a nondiscretionary duty on the EPA but, even if it did, found that the duty had not been triggered under the circumstances. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the claims did not fit within the TSCA’s citizen-suit provisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that the organizations failed to plausibly allege associational standing. The court explained that neither organization was a traditional membership organization nor had they shown they were the functional equivalent of one. The court found insufficient evidence that the organizations’ employees, supporters, or board members constituted a constituency whose interests the organizations were entitled to represent in court. Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. View "Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Zeldin" on Justia Law

An environmental organization sought judicial review of the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s decisions to renew and not reevaluate registrations for several rodenticides, contending the Department violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its own regulations. The organization argued these pesticides posed significant risks to wildlife. Trade associations representing pesticide manufacturers and distributors intervened in the case, stating both representational and direct economic interests in defending the Department’s actions, as their members produced and sold the challenged products.The Superior Court of Alameda County initially ruled in favor of the Department, denying the environmental group’s petition. The organization appealed, and the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reversed and remanded, instructing the Department to reconsider its decision regarding reevaluation of diphacinone, a rodenticide, focusing on its unique environmental impacts. Following remand, the Department agreed to reevaluate diphacinone, and the Legislature enacted a moratorium on its use during the reevaluation process. The environmental organization then sought attorney fees under the private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5).The Superior Court found the organization was a successful party, having achieved its litigation objectives and conferred a significant public benefit. The court awarded attorney fees and costs of about $857,000, holding the Department, real parties in interest, and intervening trade associations jointly and severally liable. The trade associations appealed, arguing they were not “opposing parties” under the statute and lacked the requisite direct interest. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that intervenors with a direct pecuniary interest and active participation in the litigation qualify as “opposing parties” for purposes of fee liability under section 1021.5, even if they were not responsible for enacting or enforcing the challenged government actions. View "Raptors Are the Solution v. Croplife America" on Justia Law

A local air quality management district initiated legal action against an engineering company, its chief executive officer, and a related business, alleging they committed statutory and regulatory violations connected to their agricultural service operations. The district claimed that the defendants failed to correct their conduct after being issued several notices of violation for operating equipment without proper permits and failing to comply with emission controls. The defendants, in response, asserted that the notices were based on an internal district policy that had not been properly adopted through the required public rulemaking procedures.The defendants filed a cross-complaint in the Superior Court of Yolo County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They argued that the district relied on a “secret” policy (Policy 24) not properly promulgated under statutory procedures, which unfairly deprived them of certain agricultural exemptions. The district responded with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion under section 425.16, asserting that the cross-complaint targeted protected regulatory and legal activities, including the investigation, issuance of notices, and initiation of litigation. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the cross-complaint was a challenge to the validity of the underlying policy, not to the enforcement actions themselves.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed whether the cross-complaint arose from activities protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that the causes of action in the cross-complaint were directed at the validity of the district’s internal policy rather than at the district’s protected enforcement activities. Therefore, the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and awarded costs on appeal to the defendants. View "People ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Dist." on Justia Law

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. and three affiliates, historically involved in the manufacture and distribution of asbestos-containing talc, faced thousands of personal injury and environmental claims. Over the years, the companies divested their operating assets, notably selling them to Brenntag North America in 2004 while expressly excluding pre-sale asbestos and environmental liabilities. As liabilities mounted, one plaintiff obtained a large jury verdict in South Carolina and successfully moved to put Whittaker into receivership, with a receiver appointed to administer its assets.Following the South Carolina receivership, Whittaker's board authorized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey without consulting the receiver. The receiver moved to dismiss the bankruptcy, arguing that under the receivership order, only he had authority to file such a petition. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, finding that the receivership order did not displace the board’s authority. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed this ruling. While bankruptcy proceedings moved forward, the Debtors negotiated a $535 million settlement with Brenntag to resolve successor liability claims. However, the Official Committee of Talc Claimants argued that certain product-line successor liability claims belonged exclusively to talc creditors and not to the bankruptcy estate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed two central issues. First, it held that the propriety of Whittaker’s bankruptcy petition did not affect the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction and that, under New Jersey law, the board retained authority to file for bankruptcy because the South Carolina receiver had not obtained recognition or ancillary receivership in New Jersey. Second, the court held that product-line successor liability claims, like other derivative claims based on injury to the debtor and available to all creditors, are property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower courts’ judgments. View "In re: Whittaker Clark & Daniels" on Justia Law

A company operating a landfill in California suspected that neighboring state facilities were contributing hazardous waste, complicating its efforts to clean up groundwater contamination. The company alleged that activities at several state-run institutions bordering its landfill—including a correctional facility and a health care center—involved the use and disposal of hazardous substances that were leaching into the groundwater. In response, the company entered into an agreement allowing it to collect data from these state facilities, which it then used to support its claim that hazardous waste generation at those sites was undermining its remediation efforts.The company brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) against the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Director of the California Department of General Services. The lawsuit alleged that, by virtue of their official positions, these state officials controlled the generation and management of hazardous waste at the implicated facilities. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the officials’ general supervisory roles were insufficient to establish the “fairly direct” connection to the alleged violations required for an exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under the doctrine established in Ex parte Young.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a “fairly direct” connection between the named officials and the alleged RCRA violations. The court clarified that general supervisory authority or oversight of state agencies does not, by itself, subject state officials to suit under Ex parte Young; a more specific connection to the alleged unlawful conduct is required. Thus, the action against these particular officials could not proceed. View "FORWARD, INC. V. MACOMBER" on Justia Law

The Town of Pine Hill sued several corporations and individuals in the Wilcox Circuit Court, claiming that chemical contamination from upstream industrial facilities, including per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), polluted the Town’s drinking water supply from the Alabama River. The Town alleged that these chemicals, released via wastewater, air, and stormwater emissions, exceeded federal health guidelines, could not be removed by current treatment processes, and caused harm. The Town sought damages for remediation, future filtration costs, and injunctive relief. The complaint stated that no federal cause of action was asserted and noted that most defendants were out-of-state corporations.After the suit was filed, 3M Company, Inc. removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, citing federal-officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and diversity jurisdiction. The district court remanded the case to state court, but 3M appealed the remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The district court stayed its remand order pending appeal, even after transmitting it to the state court. The Town argued that jurisdiction returned to the circuit court upon remand, and the Wilcox Circuit Court agreed, ordering litigation to proceed.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that because the removal was under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the remand order was appealable and the federal district court retained jurisdiction to stay or reconsider its remand order, even after transmitting it to the state court. The circuit court acted without jurisdiction by proceeding while the remand order was stayed. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued a writ of prohibition, requiring the circuit court to vacate its order asserting jurisdiction and to stay proceedings until the federal appeal is resolved. View "Town of Pine Hill v. 3M Company, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on insurance coverage for environmental remediation costs incurred by a county at an airport property it owned. The activities causing contamination began during and after World War II, including industrial waste disposal and manufacturing by various tenants. In the 1990s and beyond, state authorities ordered the county to investigate and clean up hazardous groundwater pollution. The county sought coverage under a series of insurance policies issued by its insurer between 1966 and 1975, which provided both excess and umbrella liability coverage. The core disagreement was whether the insurer’s liability for property damage was limited to $9 million per occurrence, as the county argued, or subject to a $9 million annual aggregate limit, as the insurer contended.Initially, the United States District Court for the Central District of California allowed the insurer to withdraw an admission that no aggregate limit applied. The district court ultimately sided with the insurer, holding that the policies imposed an annual aggregate limit on property damage claims and relying on a California appellate decision, Garamendi v. Mission Insurance Co., to support this view. After granting the insurer’s motion, the district court dismissed the county’s claim for declaratory relief, reasoning that no further controversy existed and that any determination of future benefits would be speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under California law, the aggregate limit provisions in these policies were ambiguous regarding whether they applied to property damage. The court found that Garamendi did not bind its interpretation, considering the policies’ language and extrinsic evidence, including industry practice and the insurer’s own statements. Concluding the policies did not specify an aggregate limit for property damage, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO V. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA" on Justia Law

A commercial fisherman from Erie County, Ohio, who owned a fisheries business, challenged a state rule that amended commercial fishing regulations to exclude seine fishers from receiving yellow perch quotas. The rule, promulgated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, allocated quotas exclusively to trap net fishers and prohibited the transfer of quotas to seine licenses. The fisherman alleged that this rule deprived him of economic value and constituted a taking without compensation, and further brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy against both state and federal defendants.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Ohio and the state officials, holding that there was no protected property interest in the value of a fishing license or uncaught fish under the Takings Clause. The court also found that sovereign immunity barred all claims against the state and its officials, even if the claims otherwise had merit, and determined the state law claims were insufficiently pled. Claims against the federal defendants were dismissed without prejudice for defective service of process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that sovereign immunity barred the takings and state law claims against Ohio and the state officials, rejecting the appellant’s arguments that these defendants had waived immunity or that recent Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court decisions required judicial review of the state rule. However, the appellate court held that because the dismissal was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the claims against the state defendants should have been dismissed without prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the federal defendants. The judgment was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part, with instructions to dismiss the state claims without prejudice. View "White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife" on Justia Law