Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Delfin LNG sought approval to construct and operate a deepwater liquefied natural gas export facility in the Gulf of America, consisting of onshore infrastructure in Louisiana and floating offshore vessels. The Maritime Administration (MARAD), after extensive environmental review and public comment, initially approved the project in 2017. Over subsequent years, Delfin altered key aspects of the project, including its design and financing. MARAD determined these changes required further review and asked Delfin to submit an amended application, which Delfin did not do. In 2025, following a presidential executive order, MARAD concluded that the modifications would not cause significantly different environmental impacts and issued the license.Three environmental organizations challenged MARAD’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They argued MARAD violated the Deepwater Port Act by not requiring an amended application and additional public comment, the National Environmental Policy Act by not preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement, and the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing a license after finding the prior approval was insufficient. They requested the court vacate MARAD’s licensing decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that none of the petitioners demonstrated Article III standing. The court held that the organizations failed to identify a member who suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to MARAD’s licensing decision. The declarations submitted did not show a personal and project-specific harm, nor did they establish a sufficient geographic nexus to the affected area. As a result, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits and denied the petition for review. The main holding is that, in the absence of standing, the court cannot reach the substantive environmental or procedural claims. View "Center for Bio Diversity v. TRAN" on Justia Law

Dennis and Jeannette Burton own property along the Flathead River near Kalispell, Montana. Their land contains a pond, historically a “scour feature” of the river, which has existed for decades and was enhanced by a man-made channel connecting it to the river, likely predating their ownership. The property frequently experiences flooding in a pole barn during high river flows. In 2024, the Burtons applied to the Flathead Conservation District (FCD) for a permit under the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act to dredge the pond and channel and to use the dredged material to build a berm to protect the pole barn from flooding.The FCD conducted a site visit and, based on findings that the project could cause erosion, alter river flows, and have negative impacts on aquatic habitat, denied the permit. The FCD reasoned that the project conflicted with its rules, which discourage or prohibit dredging connected artificial or in-stream ponds. The Burtons sought judicial review and declaratory relief in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, arguing that the FCD’s decision was unsupported and that its rules did not apply to their project. The District Court upheld the FCD’s denial, finding the FCD had jurisdiction because the pond and channel were connected to the river and that the project fit the definition of a regulated off-stream pond. The court also concluded that the FCD’s consideration of prior applications for the property was not improper.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the FCD had jurisdiction, that its rules applied to the project, and that there were sufficient legal grounds for the permit denial. The Court further concluded that any deficiencies in the FCD’s explanation were harmless given the record support for the decision. View "Burton v. Flathead Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

A regional air quality agency responsible for the South Coast Air Basin, an area with some of the nation’s worst ozone pollution, amended its regulations to phase in zero nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions standards for certain appliances, such as water heaters, boilers, and process heaters. The agency determined that only widespread adoption of zero emissions standards across stationary sources could bring the region into compliance with federal ozone requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The rule’s implementation was staggered over several years, with the goal of achieving significant NOx reductions. Plaintiffs, including manufacturers and industry groups, challenged this rule, arguing that it was preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which sets national energy efficiency standards for consumer products.The United States District Court for the Central District of California considered the plaintiffs’ facial preemption challenge. The district court granted summary judgment to the air quality agency, finding that the rule did not concern the “energy use” of appliances as defined by EPCA, but instead addressed air pollution and health risks. The court concluded that the rule did not trigger EPCA’s preemption provisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that EPCA does not preempt the agency’s amended rule because nothing in EPCA’s text, structure, or history indicates Congressional intent to interfere with state and local efforts to achieve federal air quality standards under the CAA. The court also found that plaintiffs had not shown any EPCA language preempting CAA-based emissions regulations, and distinguished its earlier decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley as inapplicable here. Finally, the court held that the facial challenge failed because the rule applies to some products not covered by EPCA, and thus was not unconstitutional in every application. The judgment for the agency was affirmed. View "RINNAI AMERICA CORP. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT" on Justia Law

New York City and New York State passed laws that effectively prohibit the use of fossil-fuel-powered appliances in new buildings as part of broader efforts to address pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. These measures ban, for example, installing gas stoves or other fossil-fuel-based heating or cooking appliances in new construction. Trade associations, contractor and builder groups, and unions whose members would be affected by these prohibitions sued, arguing that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a federal law that sets efficiency standards for certain appliances, expressly preempts these state and local laws.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs challenging the New York City law lost when the court granted the City’s motion to dismiss, finding that EPCA did not preempt the local law. In a separate case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, plaintiffs challenging the State law were denied relief at the summary judgment stage against the remaining state defendant, with the court again holding that EPCA’s preemption provision did not apply. In both cases, the plaintiffs appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed both appeals together. The court held that EPCA’s express preemption provision only preempts state and local “energy conservation standards” for covered appliances and a limited class of related regulations. The challenged New York laws, which prohibit the use of certain types of appliances but do not set standards for the amount of energy those appliances use, do not fall within the scope of EPCA’s preemption. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district courts, allowing the state and city laws to stand. View "Association of Contracting Plumbers v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The State alleged that two corporate officers of companies specializing in recycling fiberglass waste failed to properly dispose of approximately 1,300 decommissioned wind turbine blades, instead allowing them to accumulate at several sites in Iowa without legitimate recycling. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) investigated the sites beginning in 2018, raising concerns about speculative accumulation. The DNR subsequently engaged with the companies to develop compliance plans, resulting in consent orders requiring proper recycling and financial assurances. When the companies failed to comply, the State sought civil penalties and a permanent injunction against both the business entities and their corporate officers.The Iowa District Court for Jasper County reviewed the officers’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The officers had argued they had never been to Iowa and were not personally involved in the conduct at issue. The district court denied their motion, finding sufficient minimum contacts through their roles as responsible corporate officers of the involved entities. The court also deemed both officers as “persons” subject to liability under Iowa Code section 455B.307(3). The officers sought interlocutory appeal, which was granted.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the State had adequately pleaded claims against both officers as individuals potentially subject to liability under Iowa’s solid waste and recycling statutes, applying the responsible corporate officer doctrine. However, the Court determined that only one officer, who had signed compliance documents and directed company activity in Iowa, had sufficient minimum contacts for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The other officer, lacking direct involvement or contacts with Iowa related to the violations, was not subject to personal jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling as to one officer, reversed as to the other, and remanded for dismissal of claims against the latter without prejudice. View "State of Iowa v. Lilly" on Justia Law

Several conservation groups challenged a 2020 amendment to the management plan for Thunder Basin National Grassland, alleging that the United States Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The State of Wyoming intervened in the case. After the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, the district court upheld the agency’s plan amendment, ruling that it complied with both statutes.The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit found that the Forest Service’s amendment did not comply with NEPA, specifically because the agency issued an unduly narrow Purpose and Need statement, failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, and did not take the required “hard look” at environmental consequences. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the ESA claims. Instead of determining the appropriate remedy itself, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to decide whether the plan amendment should be vacated or remanded without vacatur, instructing the district court to apply the two-part Allied-Signal test.On remand, the district court considered additional briefing and ordered remand to the Forest Service without vacatur of the 2020 Plan Amendment, finding that both Allied-Signal factors favored this approach. The plaintiffs then sought appellate review of the district court’s refusal to order vacatur. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order because it was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and no exception to the administrative remand rule applied. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Western Watersheds Project v. Forest Service" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge by several states and industry groups to a 2024 rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), lowering the annual standard from 12 µg/m³ to 9 µg/m³. The revision followed new scientific assessments and a unanimous recommendation from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that the prior standard was inadequate to protect public health. Petitioners argued that the EPA lacked statutory authority to promulgate the new rule, that the decision-making process was improperly influenced by environmental justice considerations, and that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Clean Air Act.Previously, in 2020, the prior EPA Administrator chose to retain the 12 µg/m³ standard, citing scientific uncertainties and a divided CASAC. That decision was challenged but held in abeyance after a change in administration. The Biden-appointed EPA Administrator initiated a review, which led to the 2024 revision. After a further change in administration, the EPA itself moved to vacate the 2024 rule, now agreeing with challengers that the agency had exceeded its authority and failed to consider costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the 2024 rule and the EPA’s motion to vacate. The court held that the EPA had statutory authority to revise the NAAQS outside the five-year review cycle without performing a “thorough review” of all criteria, that the agency was not required to consider costs or attainability when revising or setting the standard, and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court denied both the petitions for review and the EPA’s motion for vacatur, upholding the 2024 rule. View "Commonwealth of Kentucky v. EPA" on Justia Law

A company with a lease in the Brentwood Oil Field, Contra Costa County, proposed to convert an inactive oil and gas extraction well into a water injection well for disposing of treated wastewater, a byproduct of oil and gas drilling. The well in question had been built in 1963, used for extraction until 1984, and then plugged. The company currently disposed of wastewater by trucking it offsite but sought to inject it underground instead. Regulatory agencies, including CalGEM, the State Water Board, and the Regional Water Board, expressed concerns about potential contamination of local clean water sources due to possible migration of wastewater. After additional technical analysis and the imposition of specific project conditions, these concerns were resolved, and CalGEM approved the project, issuing a notice of exemption (NOE) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), relying on the “class 1” categorical exemption for minor alterations of existing facilities with negligible expansion of use.The Contra Costa County Superior Court found substantial evidence did not support CalGEM’s determination that the project fell within the class 1 exemption, concluding that converting an oil and gas well into a water injection well did not constitute negligible or no expansion of former use. CalGEM agreed to comply with the writ. On appeal, the First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed, holding that the exemption applied because the environmental risks of the new use were negligible.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use” in the class 1 exemption refers to the nature or degree of a structure or facility’s use, not to the risk of environmental harm caused by such a change. The court remanded the case for reconsideration under this proper framework and did not reach the additional question regarding project conditions as mitigation. View "Sunflower Alliance v. Dept. of Conservation" on Justia Law

The Washington State Legislature enacted the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) in 2021 to address climate change by capping greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, such as large fuel suppliers. The CCA included a specific exemption for motor vehicle fuel or special fuel used exclusively for agricultural purposes, provided that the buyer supplies the seller with an exemption certificate. The Department of Ecology was tasked with adopting rules to implement this exemption and determining a method for expanding it to include fuels used for transporting agricultural products on public highways. Ecology promulgated rules in 2022 that allowed suppliers to claim the exemption if they could document, through an exemption certificate, that the fuel was used for agricultural purposes. Some suppliers began imposing surcharges on fuel, including fuel for agricultural purposes, to offset compliance costs.The Washington Farm Bureau (WFB) petitioned Ecology to create a more accessible exemption mechanism and a process for refunds of surcharges, but Ecology denied the petition, reasoning that existing guidance sufficed and it lacked authority to issue refunds. WFB then filed a petition for declaratory judgment and agency review under the Washington Administrative Procedure Act in the superior court, arguing that Ecology’s rule and denial of further rulemaking exceeded statutory authority and were arbitrary and capricious. The superior court dismissed WFB’s action with prejudice.On direct review, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the superior court’s dismissal. The court held that Ecology’s rule was reasonably consistent with the statutory language and structure of the CCA, did not exceed Ecology’s statutory authority, and was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also found that Ecology’s denial of WFB’s petition for rulemaking was based on due consideration and within the agency’s discretion. The court affirmed that Ecology was not required to implement WFB’s preferred exemption method. View "Wash. Farm Bureau v. Dep't Of Ecology" on Justia Law

Monsanto Company manufactures Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and concluded it is not likely to cause cancer, and as a result, EPA has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label. John Durnell used Roundup for about 20 years and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, asserting a failure-to-warn claim, arguing that Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.A jury in the Missouri trial court found in Durnell’s favor on the failure-to-warn claim and awarded him more than $1 million in damages. Monsanto argued that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempted the state-law failure-to-warn claim because it would require labeling different from what the EPA mandates. The Missouri trial court rejected this argument, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that Missouri’s failure-to-warn requirements were consistent with FIFRA’s misbranding provisions.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case. It held that FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim. The Court reasoned that EPA’s approval of Roundup’s label—without a cancer warning—constitutes a federal labeling requirement. Because FIFRA’s preemption clause prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal requirements, Missouri’s requirement for a cancer warning is preempted. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Monsanto v. Durnell" on Justia Law