HB Litigation News

Category: Environmental Torts

Opioid Addiction Litigation 2026: The New Post-Mega-Settlements Normal, Why Tribal Claims Are Central, and a Federal Pullback on Treatment Programs
Opioid Addiction Litigation 2026

The New Post-Mega-Settlements Normal, Why Tribal Claims Are Central, and a Federal Pullback on Treatment Programs

Courts are no longer just resolving claims — they are shaping how opioid abatement is funded, distributed, and monitored.

Having matured from a battle-like phase defined by sweeping complaints and massive bellwether trials, opioid litigation now operates through coordinated MDL case management, state and tribal abatement structures, national settlement frameworks with strict reporting requirements, and bankruptcy plans designed to navigate the Supreme Court’s constraints on mass-tort reorganizations.

The Congressional Research Service’s 2025 analysis of national opioid settlements observes that more than a million Americans have died of opioid-involved overdoses since 1999, and governmental plaintiffs have increasingly relied on litigation recoveries to fund prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. The National Opioid Settlements’ executive summary underscores how abatement-only spending mandates and long-tail payment schedules have become core components of the litigation resolution landscape.

When it comes to opioid response and treatment programs, however, the Trump administration has proposed and implemented deep funding cuts. As a result, these life-saving programs have entered a period of instability that could put the nation back on track toward rising overdose deaths like those reported by the Congressional Research Service.

MDL 2804: The Central Coordinating Spine

MDL No. 2804 — In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation — remains the heart of federal opioid litigation. The Northern District of Ohio explains that plaintiffs allege manufacturers misrepresented addiction risks associated with long-term opioid use and distributors failed to monitor suspicious orders—conduct that contributed to the epidemic.

Even after large national settlements, docket activity continues, as reflected in aggregated reporting sources like CourtListener, where thousands of related filings persist. The MDL docket reflects not only unsettled claims but ongoing disputes over allocation, administration, and settlement implementation.

National Opioid Settlements: Long-Horizon Abatement Funding

The National Opioid Settlements — Executive Summary outlines coordinated agreements across distributors, manufacturers, and pharmacy chains. The 2021 agreements require the “Big Three” distributors—McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen—to pay up to $21 billion over 18 years. Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) contributes up to $5 billion over nine years.

Later settlements with CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Teva, and Allergan expanded total abatement funding while implementing operational reforms. Crucially, under both the 2021 and 2022 frameworks, states and their subdivisions must use at least 85% of funds for opioid abatement—an intentional structure turning settlement payouts into a form of restricted public health funding. CRS simultaneously documents how states have relied on these distributions to fill gaps in treatment and harm-reduction systems.

Purdue, Bankruptcy, and the Supreme Court’s Harrington Decision

A pivotal shift occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. on June 27, 2024. The Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a Chapter 11 plan to release claims against non-debtors—such as Sackler family members—without creditors’ consent. This ruling struck at the core of the nonconsensual third-party release model often used to resolve mass-harm cases through bankruptcy courts.

In response, Purdue Pharma announced in November 2025 that the bankruptcy court indicated it would approve a reorganization plan structured around creditor choice. The plan preserves a distribution of more than $7.4 billion in abatement and compensation funds while giving creditors the option to grant or withhold releases of their direct claims—aligning with Harrington’s requirements.

Plan materials and confirmation documents are publicly accessible through the Kroll Restructuring Administration’s Purdue case site.

Tribal Nations: A Parallel, Sovereign Settlement System

Tribal Nations participate in opioid litigation through a distinct sovereign framework. The Tribal Opioid Settlements Official Portal documents tribal litigation across the opioid supply chain, from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies and consultants. Settlements require that funds be used exclusively for opioid abatement in Indian Country, and Tribal Nations must file periodic abatement-use reports to maintain eligibility for future distributions.

A defining component of tribal settlement administration is the intertribal allocation methodology. The Intertribal Allocation page describes how allocation formulas—originally developed for the Purdue bankruptcy—distribute funds according to relative harm suffered and were subsequently adopted in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy tribal settlement structure.

To support ongoing tribal settlements, the MDL court established a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) framework in March 2025, as detailed in a comprehensive order relating to “All MDL Tribal Cases.” This QSF structure enables coordinated distribution of settlement proceeds for additional defendants resolving claims with Tribal Nations.

Tribal Nations now operate within a parallel, sovereign settlement system with their own allocation formulas and reporting structures.

Enforcement Trends: Misbranding, Dispensing Failures, and Corporate Conduct

McKinsey & Company

The U.S. Department of Justice’s December 13, 2024 press release announced a landmark resolution of criminal and civil investigations into McKinsey’s work advising Purdue on OxyContin sales strategies. McKinsey agreed to pay $650 million, adopt compliance reforms, and cease consulting on controlled substances for a limited period. The firm’s own documentation appears on the McKinsey — Opioid Facts portal.

Endo Health Solutions (Opana ER)

On February 29, 2024, DOJ announced a global resolution with Endo, including a misdemeanor FDCA plea. Under the bankruptcy agreement, Endo will pay up to $464.9 million over ten years, subject to approval by the Southern District of New York bankruptcy court. DOJ’s Endo announcement explains how its marketing of Opana ER violated federal law.

Pharmacies (Walgreens and Others)

Pharmacy dispensing practices remain an enforcement priority. DOJ’s April 21, 2025 Walgreens announcement outlines allegations that Walgreens violated the Controlled Substances Act by filling millions of invalid opioid prescriptions and violated the False Claims Act by billing federal healthcare programs for them. CRS contextualizes such actions within the broader national opioid response framework.

Abatement Governance: The Future of Opioid Litigation

The next decade of opioid litigation will be dominated by governance, not liability. National settlement agreements require abatement-only spending and extensive reporting, while tribal agreements require detailed abatement-use submissions to remain eligible for distributions.
The federal government has traditionally been a major source of funding for opioid response efforts. On Sept. 22, 2025, HHS (via SAMHSA) announced more than $1.5 billion in continuation awards under the State Opioid Response and Tribal Opioid Response programs.
However, the September 2025 SAMHSA awards were part of the last intact cycle of preapproved federal opioid response funding. Shortly afterward, the federal government began backing away from funding commitments, threatening the stability of addiction treatment and overdose prevention programs nationwide.

While settlement funding becomes more structured and long-term, federal opioid-response funding has grown increasingly unstable.

Federal Opioid Response Funding Under the Trump Administration: Cuts, Delays, and Uncertainty

While litigation-driven abatement funding has become more structured and long-horizon, the federal government’s parallel role in funding opioid response programs has entered a period of instability. Independent investigations and watchdog analyses show that, throughout 2025 and into early 2026, the Trump administration implemented or proposed significant cuts, delays, and disruptions affecting overdose prevention and addiction treatment programs nationwide.

In July 2025, NPR reported that the administration withheld roughly $140 million in fentanyl response grants allocated through the CDC’s Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) program. By late 2025, analyses showed deep cuts to SAMHSA, including staff reductions exceeding 50 percent and elimination of $1.7 billion in block grants. In January 2026, outlets confirmed cancellation of up to $1.9 billion in substance use and mental health funding affecting thousands of grantees.

Additional reports revealed draft budget proposals recommending elimination of naloxone distribution programs. Watchdog organizations warned these shifts risk reversing gains in overdose death reductions and destabilizing already strained public health systems.

Taken together, these developments show that federal opioid response funding remains uncertain. As states, counties, and Tribal Nations build long-term abatement programs funded through settlements and bankruptcy plans, federal policy volatility creates ongoing risk for the treatment and prevention infrastructure those programs depend on.

After the Supreme Court’s Harrington decision, mass-tort bankruptcies can no longer rely on nonconsensual third-party releases.
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
February 7, 2026
HB Environmental Update | Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026 | Climate Funding, Wind Power, Wild Horses, PFAS Regs, PFAS Settlement, and the Decades of Debate Over the Pollution Exclusion
HB Environmental Update | Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026 | Climate Funding, Wind Power, Wild Horses, PFAS Regs, PFAS Settlement, and the Decades of Debate Over the Pollution Exclusion

Together, these decisions highlight a period of active judicial engagement with federal agencies—reining in some, supporting others, and shaping the boundaries of environmental governance as largescale landuse and clean energy projects accelerate.scale landuse and cleanenergy projects accelerate.

Disputes Over Federal Climate Grants is a Contract Issue

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated injunctions that had prevented federal agencies from freezing or terminating climaterelated grants awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act and similar programs. The court found that the disputes were essentially contractual and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the federal district court. The court stressed that the Administrative Procedure Act’s narrow waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be used to enforce moneypayment obligations reframed as administrative claims, and that plaintiffs’ constitutional theories were simply statutory claims dressed in constitutional language. The ruling reinforces a tightening judicial view of lowercourt authority in federal funding disputes.

International Climate Prosecutions

According to recent updates from the Sabin Center’s Climate Litigation Database, late January brought a wave of fresh prosecutions abroad—including multiple environmentalcrime cases filed by Brazilian federal authorities. These additions reflect a steadily expanding global enforcement landscape, showing that climate litigation today increasingly includes localized and even criminal allegations involving pollution, land use, and environmental harm alongside the highprofile constitutional and administrative challenges that have long dominated the field.

All the Pretty Horses

January 2026 produced several significant rulings on the environmental front. In Friends of Animals v. Burgum, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of a privately operated offrange corral capable of housing up to 4,000 wild horses and burros, affirming wide agency discretion in wildhorse management.

Forest Lump

Environmental plaintiffs found success, however, in Oregon Wild v. U.S. Forest Service, where a federal district court ruled that the Forest Service had improperly relied on a categorical exclusion under NEPA to greenlight commercial thinning projects in the Fremont–Winema National Forest. The decision underscores judicial skepticism toward agency attempts to streamline forestmanagement approvals without full environmental review.

Mighty Wind

Meanwhile, in the energy sector, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction in Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, blocking the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from suspending work on a major offshorewind project off the Virginia coast. The ruling signals courts’ growing reluctance to allow abrupt administrative reversals that could disrupt multibilliondollar clean energy investments.

Together, these decisions highlight a period of active judicial engagement with federal agencies—reining in some, supporting others, and shaping the boundaries of environmental governance as largescale landuse and clean energy projects accelerate.scale landuse and cleanenergy projects accelerate.

A Good Day for Drinking Water

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the EPA’s attempt to retreat from several portions of the national PFAS drinkingwater rule, declining to vacate the regulation’s strict Maximum Contaminant Levels. The underlying merits were far too contested to justify shortcircuiting the litigation, the court said, effectively keeping in place the rule’s most protective limits while the case proceeds. The next day, the same court refused to strike the Hazard Index portion of the rule—covering PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, PFBS, and related mixtures—and instead directed EPA to clarify exactly which provisions it still intends to defend. Together, the rulings sharply limit the new administration’s efforts to narrow PFAS regulation midcase and maintain regulatory pressure on water utilities, states, and industrial dischargers.

Judge Eyeballs PFAS Settlement Size and Efficacy

In New Jersey, a federal judge is closely examining nearly $3 billion in proposed PFAS settlements involving DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, and 3M. The court has pressed the state for assurance that the settlement figures are justified, that the funds will appropriately aid municipalities and utilities facing costly PFAS contamination, and that liability releases are not overly broad. Local governments have voiced concern that the deals could leave them responsible for significant cleanup costs despite the historic settlement totals. The judge’s unusual level of scrutiny signals a new era of judicial oversight for large environmental agreements, ensuring they withstand publicinterest review rather than simply reflecting negotiated numbers.

Together these developments show PFAS litigation entering a more assertive—and less predictable—phase: courts are blocking regulatory rollbacks, insisting on transparency and rigor in massive settlement agreements, and shaping the boundaries of PFAS accountability in ways that will influence manufacturers, water systems, insurers, and regulators throughout 2026.

Pollution by Any Other Name

The Illinois Supreme Court on Jan. 23, 2026 delivered a decisive clarification on the scope of the pollution exclusion in general liability policies. The court held that stateissued permits authorizing emissions have no bearing on whether the exclusion applies. In litigation arising from decades of ethylene oxide releases at a Willowbrook sterilization facility, the court rejected policyholder arguments based on regulatory authorization and reaffirmed that such emissions fall squarely within “traditional environmental pollution” under Koloms. Courts may not insert conditions into CGL policies that the parties did not, the court held. The carriers in the case, therefore, did not owe defense or indemnity. Griffith Foods International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Ill. Sup. Ct., 2026 IL 131710.

The exclusion ruling has generated robust commentary from attorneys. Policyholderside lawyers focused on the opinion’s analytical gaps and realworld consequences, while insuranceindustry attorneys—though generally pleased—also offered substantive observations about how the ruling clarifies longstanding uncertainty.

Brian Friel of Miller Friel PLLC told Bloomberg Law that the court “gave short shrift” to the key ambiguity issue, i.e., the interpretive tension between intentional pollution and permitted emission. The court “missed the boat,” said Robert Horkovich of Anderson Kill, on the historical purpose of the pollution exclusion, which to deny coverage for intentional acts, not permitted industrial activity. Laura Foggan of Lavin Rindner Duffield LLC characterized the ruling as a “straightforward decision that enforces the pollution exclusion and reinforces the importance of applying contract terms.” She told Bloomberg Law that the ruling reaffirms that the exclusion means what it says—permitted or not, emissions remain “pollution” unless the policy expressly says otherwise. CGL policies are different from pollution liability policies. Companies handling hazardous substances need specialized coverage.

Together, these perspectives paint a consistent picture: insurers see contractual clarity, policyholders see greater financial exposure.
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
February 6, 2026
Voting Rights Under Threat: A Legal Challenge | Organizations Say Expansion of Citizen Database Violates Privacy and Voting Rights
Privacy and Voting Rights Groups Challenge Expanded Federal Citizenship Database

Litigation takes on a dangerous aspect of a broader campaign to erode confidence in American elections.

By Tom Hagy

A coalition of privacy and voting rights organizations—including the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)—has filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, warning that the federal government has quietly reshaped a benefits‑verification system into something insidious: a national citizenship database capable of sweeping voter‑roll surveillance.

The administration created The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, or SAVE, to verify the immigration status of non‑citizens who apply for benefits. But according to the plaintiffs, DHS and SSA have “reengineered” SAVE into an instrument for mass voter‑eligibility checks. Their complaint alleges that sensitive personal data from multiple federal databases—including SSA’s vast NUMIDENT file—has been repurposed to enable states to upload entire voter‑registration lists for bulk citizenship screening.

Rules and Procedures Flouted

The lawsuit contends that the agencies executed this overhaul without following the Privacy Act’s procedural requirements. They bypassed mandatory system notices, skipping meaningful public comment, and effectively ignoring substantial warnings about privacy breaches, data‑security vulnerabilities, and the foreseeable disenfranchisement of eligible voters—particularly naturalized and derived citizens whose SSA records are often outdated.

Under the new system, election officials may submit registrant names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers for automated comparison against federal data. But naturalized citizens’ SSA records frequently lag behind their actual citizenship status, a mismatch that has already produced erroneous “non‑citizen” flags. Some voters have been told to produce additional documentation on short notice or risk removal from the rolls.

Is SAFE catching on?

Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia have already begun using the expanded system. In Texas, more than 2,700 registered voters were flagged as potential non‑citizens and instructed to provide proof of citizenship within 30 days. Voting‑rights advocates say these kinds of mass challenges fall hardest on naturalized Americans, who already face document‑access barriers and higher risks of bureaucratic misclassification.

The plaintiffs seek a court order halting the expanded program, restoring SAVE to its original purpose, and requiring DHS and SSA to comply with the transparency and public‑participation obligations built into federal privacy law. They argue that the retooled system exceeds statutory authority and undermines constitutional protections surrounding the right to vote.

An Insidious Act Dressed as an Innocuous Fix

It’s tempting to treat the SAVE overhaul as a one‑off bureaucratic misstep, i.e., just another example of an agency stretching its mandate. But that would be a mistake. This episode belongs to a much larger, more deliberate pattern: the steady chipping away at public confidence in our election system.

Over the past several years, the country has witnessed a series of escalations designed to sow distrust in the machinery of democracy. The tactics vary: legal challenges, public pressure campaigns, strategic misinformation, sweeping claims of widespread fraud without evidence, and now, administrative systems quietly recalibrated to cast suspicion on eligible voters. The cherry on top, of course, was January 6, 2021, when Republicans banded together inside the Capitol to decertify state ballots while a mob outside whipped up its collective rage and violently raided the building. Both groups successfully disrupted, but failed to stop, the certification of the election. Meanwhile, President Trump and his most ardent acolytes continue to assert — repeatedly and without evidence — that President Biden’s victory was made possible by widespread fraud.

While the tactics are different, the goal remains the same: convince enough Americans that the system is broken, then point to that manufactured doubt as justification for ever more aggressive “security measures.”

The SAVE expansion is the quietest version of the same strategy. No shouting, no rallies, no flag-pole wielding mobs—just a bulk‑verification portal that treats entire voter rolls as suspect, armed with data known to produce false positives for millions of naturalized citizens. Such a bureaucratic dragnet does not need to shatter glass or draw blood to be effective.
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
January 23, 2026
HB Artificial Intelligence Update Monday, Dec. 15, 2025 | Wrongful Death, Discrimination, Intellectual Property
Artificial Intelligence Litigation Update | 12.15.2025

Artificial intelligence continues to challenge existing laws and business models, and at a rapid pace. The rules of commerce, creativity, and liability are all being tested. Recent cases illustrate some of the legal flashpoints: privacy, intellectual property, mental health, and employment bias.

Google Faces Dual Privacy Battles Over AI Activation and Tracking

Google is fighting on two fronts in California courts. In September, a federal jury awarded $425 million to Gmail users who claimed the company tracked their activity on third-party apps even after they disabled privacy settings, according to filings in Rodriguez v. Google LLC. That verdict is now on appeal.

Meanwhile, a new class action alleges Google secretly activated its Gemini AI across Gmail, Chat, and Meet in October without consent. The complaint calls the move “deceptive and outrageous,” asserting Gemini accessed “the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications.” Plaintiffs argue this violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. One cited prompt reads: “When you turn this setting on, you agree…”—even though the feature was already enabled.

Analysis. IfAI features are rolled out as opt-out rather than opt-in, will this create exposure under privacy statutes? It sure seems that way.

Authors Secure $1.5 Billion Settlement in Anthropic Piracy Case

In a high-stakes copyright fight, authors and publishers reached a $1.5 billion settlement with Anthropic over allegations that its Claude AI was trained on pirated books. Judge William Alsup approved the deal in October, calling it “fair” but warning distribution “will be complicated.” The settlement covers up to 500,000 works, with payouts estimated at $3,000 per book. Anthropic agreed to destroy pirated copies and reaffirmed its stance that “transformative use remains a cornerstone of AI innovation.”

Analysis. What a price to pay for sloppy data acquisition! Fair use may shield transformative training, but sourcing pirate libraries is indefensible. If the practice keeps up, we will see more suits targeting the provenance of training data.

ChatGPT Blamed in Grisly Murder-Suicide

In December, the estate of Suzanne Adams, 83, sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging ChatGPT fueled her son’s paranoid delusions, leading to a murder-suicide. The complaint claims the chatbot convinced him he had implanted a “divine instrument system” and could trust “no one except ChatGPT.” OpenAI said it is reviewing the case and pointed to crisis intervention protocols.

Analysis. This appears to be the first U.S. wrongful death claim tying AI to homicide. While causation will be hard to prove, the case begs the question: When does a chatbot cross from tool to dangerous and manipulating influence? Establishing foreseeability and duty to warn will be key issues in the case.

Workday Faces Collective Action Over AI Hiring Bias

A federal court certified a nationwide collective action against Workday, alleging its AI-driven hiring tools discriminated against older and disabled applicants. Judge Rita Lin’s May ruling allows thousands to join the suit. Plaintiffs argue the system acted as “an unlawful gatekeeper,” issuing rejections within minutes.

Analysis. Algorithmic bias is no longer hypothetical. With Workday reporting 1.1 billion rejections, the scale alone invites scrutiny. Vendors can’t — or at least shouldn’t — hide behind clients. If your model screens candidates, the risk is on you, the employer.

Alpha Modus Sues H&M Over AI Patent Infringement

On December 3, Alpha Modus Corp. Sued H&M in Texas, alleging infringement of five patents covering in-store AI systems for shopper analytics and personalized engagement. The company seeks a jury trial and enhanced damages for willful infringement.

Analysis. As AI moves from cloud to physical spaces, patent wars will follow. Retailers adopting “smart store” tech without licensing agreements are painting targets on their backs.

So …

Watching how courts apply old doctrines to new technology is a core mission of this site. But it’s nothing new. There was once a miracle building insulation that was also fire retardant. That was all great until people inhaled fibers into their lungs. Incredibly, asbestos litigation continues today. When it comes to AI, businesses should know that the risk is an enterprise risk, one that increases when companies fail to deploy adequate and appropriate safeguards. Compliance, transparency, and IP hygiene are keys to survival. And, for individuals, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean an algorithm isn’t out to get you. –Tom Hagy
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
December 14, 2025
HB Environmental Update Monday, Dec. 15, 2025 | Feds Step Back, States Step In, Courts Push Back, EPA Wavers
Environmental Law Round‑Up: States Step In, Courts Push Back, EPA Wavers

One Person’s Dreamscape is Another’s Nightmare

We’re in an age when deregulation hawks in just about every sector are getting what they’ve asked for. That includes environmental protection, something many of us have taken for granted, as we watch federal measures undergo a dramatic unwinding at a time when the scientific community agrees more should be done, not less, to safeguard the planet.

Federal agencies are retreating from aggressive enforcement, states are asserting new authority, and courts—both state and federal—are emerging as decisive arbiters of climate and energy policy. The result is a patchwork of obligations and opportunities that lawyers, corporations, and communities must navigate with increasing urgency.

This week’s developments underscore the trend: state legislatures advancing environmental justice mandates, the EPA signaling a softer enforcement posture, the Supreme Court preparing to hear cases that could redefine regulatory authority, communities winning climate litigation against fossil fuel companies, and a federal judge clearing the way for offshore wind projects off Massachusetts. Together, these stories reveal a system in flux, where power is shifting away from Washington and toward states and courts.

Feds Retreat, States Surge in Enviro Justice

With federal agencies scaling back, states are filling the void. E&E News reported that “states are increasingly stepping up to integrate environmental justice into permitting and enforcement decisions.” New York now requires cumulative impact assessments before permits are issued, while California has expanded mandates for community participation. Connecticut and Maine have followed suit, obligating agencies to weigh disproportionate impacts on low‑income and minority communities.

Grassroots pressure has been decisive. The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators explained that lawmakers are “responding to decades of inequitable exposure to pollution by embedding EJ into statutory frameworks.” Yet industry groups warn the rules could stall development. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued cumulative impact assessments “impose burdensome requirements and create uncertainty in permitting processes.”

Why it matters: Compliance obligations now vary dramatically across jurisdictions. For national corporations, attorneys must navigate a patchwork of state mandates, anticipating litigation risks and tailoring strategies to each regulatory climate.

EPA Enforcement Under Scrutiny

The EPA’s December memorandum has unsettled its own staff. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance directed personnel to prioritize “compliance first.” Craig Pritzlaff, acting assistant administrator, told E&E News the memo “reinforces a ‘compliance first’ orientation as the guiding principle.”

Industry welcomed the shift. The National Law Review highlighted six guiding factors, including voluntary self‑audits and coordination with states. Holland & Knight described the memo as “an enforcement policy shift that emphasizes swift resolution and compliance… over prolonged investigations.”

But critics see a retreat. One EPA staffer warned, “This will stop all meaningful cases in their tracks.” NGOs point to continued aggressive enforcement under the Toxic Substances Control Act, where citizen suits remain active. Meanwhile, Reuters reported EPA may delay Biden‑era vehicle pollution rules, reinforcing perceptions of uneven enforcement.

Why it matters: Attorneys must advise clients to seize compliance assistance opportunities while preparing targeted enforcement in sectors where NGOs and statutory mandates keep pressure high.

Supreme Court Environmental Docket

The Supreme Court’s October 2025 term is stacked with environmental cases. SCOTUSblog reported six major disputes, including challenges to EPA’s greenhouse gas authority and state water quality standards. Legal scholars told Bloomberg Law the Court’s rulings “could reshape doctrines on federal authority and redefine the balance between state and federal power.”

Chevron deference is also on the line. Several cases question whether agencies should retain broad interpretive authority. A narrowing—or overturning—of Chevron would force EPA to justify regulations more rigorously, opening new avenues for litigation.

Why it matters: These cases could reset the regulatory landscape for decades. Attorneys must prepare clients for precedent shifts that affect permitting, enforcement, and liability.

Court Victories for Climate Advocates

Climate advocates scored wins in 2025. A federal appeals court allowed municipalities’ damages claims against oil companies to proceed. Inside Climate News called it “a major victory for communities seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts.”

Other rulings blocked pipeline approvals and challenged fossil fuel subsidies. Courts increasingly recognize standing for communities facing climate harms, signaling judicial willingness to engage with climate science. Industry groups, however, warn of costly litigation. The American Petroleum Institute argued, “Climate policy should be set by legislatures, not courts.”

Why it matters: Litigation is becoming a central tool of climate governance. Attorneys must anticipate expanded liability for fossil fuel companies and prepare municipalities and NGOs to use courts as policy drivers.

Offshore Wind Pause Overturned

In Massachusetts, a federal judge struck down the Trump Administration’s pause on offshore wind projects, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” The Boston Globe reported the ruling “clears the way for developers to resume planning and permitting for offshore wind farms off the Massachusetts coast.”

The case, brought by renewable energy companies and environmental groups, argued the pause violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge agreed, finding no rational basis for halting projects. Fishing groups remain wary, but clean energy advocates hailed the decision as a milestone for offshore wind.

Why it matters: The ruling accelerates clean energy deployment and underscores judicial checks on executive power. Attorneys advising developers or coastal stakeholders must prepare for renewed permitting activity and potential conflicts with fishing interests.

The Takeaway

This week’s environmental law stories reveal a landscape defined by state assertiveness, judicial activism, and federal uncertainty. From state‑led EJ initiatives to Supreme Court cases that could reshape regulatory authority, the terrain is shifting rapidly. For practitioners, the message is clear: environmental law is no longer defined solely by federal agencies. Courts and states are taking the wheel, and attorneys must adapt strategies accordingly. If we elect to see a silver lining, it is that states and courts still have considerable power, but they are under attack. So, maybe we have a slightly tarnished silver lining.
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
December 13, 2025
Montana Court Awards $2.9 Million in Fees to Youth Climate Plaintiffs After Landmark Constitutional Win

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Montana Court Awards $2.9 Million in Fees to Youth Climate Plaintiffs After Landmark Constitutional Win

The constitutional provisions are directly impacted by anthropogenic climate change, and climate change harms the Youth Plaintiffs by harming their physical and psychological health and safety, interfering with family and cultural foundations and integrity, and causing economic deprivations.

–Montana Supreme Court in Held v. State

A Montana District Court recently awarded $2.86 million in attorney fees and $98.7 million in costs to the youth plaintiffs who prevailed in their constitutional climate change case against the State of Montana and other state defendants.

In making this award under the Private Attorney General Doctrine (PAGD), the court emphasized the “exceptional strength and societal importance of the public policies vindicated by this litigation,” noting the substantial harms affecting Montana’s children and the natural environment. The number of beneficiaries was found to include all those protected by rights guaranteed in the Montana Constitution.

The court further found that equity supported the fee award under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA), highlighting the disparity between the resources available to the youth plaintiffs—who “suffer the direct impacts of climate change and have limited means to seek redress”—and those of the state defendants, who possess “significantly greater governmental capacity to protect Montana’s natural resources.”

This decision follows the Montana Supreme Court’s December 2024 affirmation of the District Court’s ruling which recognized the Montana Constitution’s protection of the right to a stable climate system. The case was brought by 16 youth plaintiffs who challenged a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that barred consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews.

The Supreme Court held that the youth plaintiffs had standing to assert their right to a clean and healthful environment and found the MEPA limitation violated that right. The opinion underscored the right’s “forward-looking and preventative” nature, its application to pollutants not fully understood at the time of the 1972 Constitutional Convention, and required that statutes implicating the right undergo strict scrutiny (Held v. State, 2024 MT 312, 419 Mont. 403, 560 P.3d 1235).

The District Court remarked on the need for private enforcement, stating, “The need for private enforcement of the constitutional provisions asserted by Plaintiffs is established by all of the circumstances, including the scientific facts established at trial.” The court explained the broad reach of its ruling. “The number of people standing to benefit from this Court’s decision in this case is the number of persons who benefit from the rights in Montana’s Constitution.”

These findings underscore the significance of the Held v. State case as a major recognition of climate-related constitutional protections at the state level and highlight the vital role of private enforcement in safeguarding environmental rights for future generations.

November 16, 2025
Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility

U.S. and UN policies diverge, as litigation over corporate responsibility falters in one state and advances in another.

By Tom Hagy*

The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup.

A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists.

As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles.

The ICJ’s Climate Opinion: A New Legal Standard for Global Accountability

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion that could redefine the legal obligations of nations in addressing climate change. Requested by the United Nations General Assembly, the opinion affirms that:
- States have a legal duty under international law to prevent environmental harm.
- Countries with higher emissions bear greater responsibility.
- Governments must regulate corporate climate impacts, including emissions and misinformation.
- A healthy environment is a human right, protected under international law.
This opinion doesn’t carry the force of binding precedent, but it sets a powerful normative standard. It will likely influence future litigation, especially in jurisdictions where international law is integrated into domestic legal systems. It also provides a legal foundation for climate activists and affected communities to challenge governmental inaction and corporate misconduct.

Implications for Mass Torts and Litigation

The ICJ’s opinion could bolster mass tort claims against multinational corporations by framing climate harm as a violation of human rights. Plaintiffs may now argue that companies and governments failed to meet international obligations, especially in cases involving vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by climate change.

Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Dismissed: A Setback for Municipal Tort Claims

On August 6, 2025, a South Carolina state court dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed by the City of Charleston against several fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP. The city alleged that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change and misled the public about its risks, resulting in costly infrastructure damage and increased flooding.

The court’s decision hinged on several key findings:
- Federal preemption: The judge ruled that federal law governs emissions and climate policy, preempting state tort claims.
- Jurisdictional issues: Some defendants were dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Causation and foreseeability: The court found the city’s theory of liability too broad, noting that climate change involves complex, global factors beyond the scope of tort law.
Implications for Future Litigation

Charleston’s loss is part of a broader trend of municipal climate lawsuits facing procedural hurdles. Courts have struggled with the challenge of attributing specific climate harms to individual companies, especially when those harms are diffuse and cumulative.

However, the dismissal does not necessarily signal the end of climate torts. Plaintiffs may refine their legal theories, focus on narrower claims (e.g., fraud or consumer protection), or pursue litigation in more favorable jurisdictions. The case also underscores the importance of venue selection and the evolving role of federal courts in climate litigation.

Honolulu’s Lawsuit Gains Momentum: A Bellwether for Climate Accountability

While Charleston’s case faltered, Honolulu’s climate lawsuit continues to gain traction. Filed in 2020, the city’s suit targets major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and contributing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Unlike Charleston, Honolulu’s case has survived multiple procedural challenges and is moving toward trial. The city argues that:
- Fossil fuel companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of misinformation.
- The companies’ actions directly contributed to climate-related damages, including coastal erosion and infrastructure costs.
- The defendants should be held liable under state tort law, including public nuisance and failure to warn.
Why Honolulu Matters

Honolulu’s case is widely viewed as a bellwether for climate litigation. If successful, it could open the floodgates for similar suits by other municipalities, states, and even private entities. The case also reflects a strategic shift: rather than focusing solely on emissions, plaintiffs are targeting alleged corporate deception and public misinformation.

Trump Administration’s Political Overhaul of Environmental Policy

In August 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that dramatically reshape the federal government’s approach to climate science and environmental regulation. These actions reflect a broader agenda to centralize control over scientific research, dismantle climate protections, and boost fossil fuel development.

Political Control Over Scientific Grants

A new executive order places all federally funded research—including climate science—under direct political oversight. Agencies must now seek approval from political appointees before announcing or awarding grants. Previously awarded grants can be canceled if deemed inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. Peer review, long considered the gold standard for scientific integrity, is now advisory and subordinate to political judgment.

This move has raised alarm across the scientific community, with critics warning that it could stifle innovation, politicize research, and undermine the credibility of U.S. science.

Rewriting National Climate Reports

The administration has begun revising past editions of the National Climate Assessment, a key document synthesizing federal climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, announced that previous reports were being “reviewed” and would be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views.

This follows the revocation of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which underpins regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The administration has also dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the next climate assessment, raising concerns about transparency and scientific integrity.

Broad Rollback of Climate Protections

The Trump administration has taken sweeping steps to dismantle climate action, including:
- Opening 58 million acres of national forests to logging and development.
- Phasing out FEMA, the nation’s disaster recovery agency, amid predictions of an intense hurricane season.
- Fast-tracking deep-sea mining without environmental safeguards.
- Blocking state-level climate laws, including ESG and carbon emission regulations.
- Ramping up oil and gas production through emergency permitting and deregulation.
- Mass layoffs at NOAA, weakening the country’s ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather.
These actions mark a sharp departure from previous climate policy and have sparked legal challenges, public protests, and international criticism.

Scientific Community Reacts to Trump Administration’s Climate Orders

The Trump administration’s recent executive actions on climate change have sparked widespread concern and condemnation from the scientific community. These measures—ranging from political oversight of research grants to rewriting national climate reports—are seen by many experts as a direct assault on scientific integrity and environmental policy.

DOE Climate Report Sparks Outrage

A Department of Energy report claiming that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed” has drawn sharp criticism. The report was authored by a group of climate skeptics, including John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

“The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona, described the report as “designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it.” Benjamin Santer, a prominent climate scientist formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called it “a revision of science and a revision of history,” adding, “We have to respond.” Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M, is helping coordinate a rebuttal, saying, “The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

These scientists argue that the report misrepresents decades of climate research and is part of a broader strategy to repeal the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which legally recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public welfare.

Rewriting the National Climate Assessment

Energy Secretary Wright confirmed that previous editions of the National Climate Assessment have been removed from public access and will be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views. Hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition of the report have been dismissed, despite legal obligations under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to deliver the assessment to Congress and the president.

This move has raised concerns about transparency and the politicization of climate science.

Undermining Scientific Standards

Critics say the administration’s actions represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientific foundation of climate policy. The DOE report selectively uses outdated or regionally limited data to obscure global trends, such as rising sea levels and record-breaking temperatures. It introduces misleading terminology—like referring to ocean acidification as “neutralizing ocean alkalinity”—and questions well-established phenomena like Arctic warming and urban heat effects.

The revocation of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is framed as a legal correction rather than a scientific reassessment, despite overwhelming evidence of climate-related harm.

In response, scientists across the country are organizing formal rebuttals and public statements, warning that these actions could have long-term consequences for environmental regulation, public health, and the credibility of U.S. science.

Broader Trends in Environmental Mass Torts

These developments reflect several broader trends in environmental and climate-related mass tort litigation:

Shift Toward Corporate Accountability

Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on corporate behavior—especially misinformation, failure to warn, and deceptive marketing—rather than emissions alone. This approach may be more legally viable and emotionally compelling to juries.

International Law as a Litigation Tool

The ICJ’s opinion and similar international rulings are being used to frame climate harm as a human rights violation. This could expand the scope of liability and introduce new legal standards into domestic courts.

Municipalities as Plaintiffs

Cities and counties are leading the charge in climate litigation, often citing local infrastructure damage, public health costs, and emergency response burdens. These cases are testing the limits of tort law and raising questions about causation, foreseeability, and jurisdiction.

Procedural Challenges Remain

Despite growing momentum, climate torts face significant hurdles, including federal preemption, standing, and causation. Courts are still grappling with how to apply traditional tort principles to global, systemic harms.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com. He also insisted *we* include the following acknowledgement: This piece was written with research and drafting assistance provided by Microsoft Copilot™, their AI tool, under the direction, review, editing, and adornment of a human editor — Tom being that human. Also, he wrote this part, in case that wasn’t obvious.
August 8, 2025
Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility

U.S. and UN policies diverge, as litigation over corporate responsibility falters in one state and advances in another.

By Tom Hagy*

The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup.

A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists.

As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles.

The ICJ’s Climate Opinion: A New Legal Standard for Global Accountability

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion that could redefine the legal obligations of nations in addressing climate change. Requested by the United Nations General Assembly, the opinion affirms that:
- States have a legal duty under international law to prevent environmental harm.
- Countries with higher emissions bear greater responsibility.
- Governments must regulate corporate climate impacts, including emissions and misinformation.
- A healthy environment is a human right, protected under international law.
This opinion doesn’t carry the force of binding precedent, but it sets a powerful normative standard. It will likely influence future litigation, especially in jurisdictions where international law is integrated into domestic legal systems. It also provides a legal foundation for climate activists and affected communities to challenge governmental inaction and corporate misconduct.

Implications for Mass Torts and Litigation

The ICJ’s opinion could bolster mass tort claims against multinational corporations by framing climate harm as a violation of human rights. Plaintiffs may now argue that companies and governments failed to meet international obligations, especially in cases involving vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by climate change.

Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Dismissed: A Setback for Municipal Tort Claims

On August 6, 2025, a South Carolina state court dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed by the City of Charleston against several fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP. The city alleged that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change and misled the public about its risks, resulting in costly infrastructure damage and increased flooding.

The court’s decision hinged on several key findings:
- Federal preemption: The judge ruled that federal law governs emissions and climate policy, preempting state tort claims.
- Jurisdictional issues: Some defendants were dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Causation and foreseeability: The court found the city’s theory of liability too broad, noting that climate change involves complex, global factors beyond the scope of tort law.
Implications for Future Litigation

Charleston’s loss is part of a broader trend of municipal climate lawsuits facing procedural hurdles. Courts have struggled with the challenge of attributing specific climate harms to individual companies, especially when those harms are diffuse and cumulative.

However, the dismissal does not necessarily signal the end of climate torts. Plaintiffs may refine their legal theories, focus on narrower claims (e.g., fraud or consumer protection), or pursue litigation in more favorable jurisdictions. The case also underscores the importance of venue selection and the evolving role of federal courts in climate litigation.

Honolulu’s Lawsuit Gains Momentum: A Bellwether for Climate Accountability

While Charleston’s case faltered, Honolulu’s climate lawsuit continues to gain traction. Filed in 2020, the city’s suit targets major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and contributing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Unlike Charleston, Honolulu’s case has survived multiple procedural challenges and is moving toward trial. The city argues that:
- Fossil fuel companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of misinformation.
- The companies’ actions directly contributed to climate-related damages, including coastal erosion and infrastructure costs.
- The defendants should be held liable under state tort law, including public nuisance and failure to warn.
Why Honolulu Matters

Honolulu’s case is widely viewed as a bellwether for climate litigation. If successful, it could open the floodgates for similar suits by other municipalities, states, and even private entities. The case also reflects a strategic shift: rather than focusing solely on emissions, plaintiffs are targeting alleged corporate deception and public misinformation.

Trump Administration’s Political Overhaul of Environmental Policy

In August 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that dramatically reshape the federal government’s approach to climate science and environmental regulation. These actions reflect a broader agenda to centralize control over scientific research, dismantle climate protections, and boost fossil fuel development.

Political Control Over Scientific Grants

A new executive order places all federally funded research—including climate science—under direct political oversight. Agencies must now seek approval from political appointees before announcing or awarding grants. Previously awarded grants can be canceled if deemed inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. Peer review, long considered the gold standard for scientific integrity, is now advisory and subordinate to political judgment.

This move has raised alarm across the scientific community, with critics warning that it could stifle innovation, politicize research, and undermine the credibility of U.S. science.

Rewriting National Climate Reports

The administration has begun revising past editions of the National Climate Assessment, a key document synthesizing federal climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, announced that previous reports were being “reviewed” and would be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views.

This follows the revocation of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which underpins regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The administration has also dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the next climate assessment, raising concerns about transparency and scientific integrity.

Broad Rollback of Climate Protections

The Trump administration has taken sweeping steps to dismantle climate action, including:
- Opening 58 million acres of national forests to logging and development.
- Phasing out FEMA, the nation’s disaster recovery agency, amid predictions of an intense hurricane season.
- Fast-tracking deep-sea mining without environmental safeguards.
- Blocking state-level climate laws, including ESG and carbon emission regulations.
- Ramping up oil and gas production through emergency permitting and deregulation.
- Mass layoffs at NOAA, weakening the country’s ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather.
These actions mark a sharp departure from previous climate policy and have sparked legal challenges, public protests, and international criticism.

Scientific Community Reacts to Trump Administration’s Climate Orders

The Trump administration’s recent executive actions on climate change have sparked widespread concern and condemnation from the scientific community. These measures—ranging from political oversight of research grants to rewriting national climate reports—are seen by many experts as a direct assault on scientific integrity and environmental policy.

DOE Climate Report Sparks Outrage

A Department of Energy report claiming that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed” has drawn sharp criticism. The report was authored by a group of climate skeptics, including John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

“The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona, described the report as “designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it.” Benjamin Santer, a prominent climate scientist formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called it “a revision of science and a revision of history,” adding, “We have to respond.” Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M, is helping coordinate a rebuttal, saying, “The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

These scientists argue that the report misrepresents decades of climate research and is part of a broader strategy to repeal the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which legally recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public welfare.

Rewriting the National Climate Assessment

Energy Secretary Wright confirmed that previous editions of the National Climate Assessment have been removed from public access and will be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views. Hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition of the report have been dismissed, despite legal obligations under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to deliver the assessment to Congress and the president.

This move has raised concerns about transparency and the politicization of climate science.

Undermining Scientific Standards

Critics say the administration’s actions represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientific foundation of climate policy. The DOE report selectively uses outdated or regionally limited data to obscure global trends, such as rising sea levels and record-breaking temperatures. It introduces misleading terminology—like referring to ocean acidification as “neutralizing ocean alkalinity”—and questions well-established phenomena like Arctic warming and urban heat effects.

The revocation of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is framed as a legal correction rather than a scientific reassessment, despite overwhelming evidence of climate-related harm.

In response, scientists across the country are organizing formal rebuttals and public statements, warning that these actions could have long-term consequences for environmental regulation, public health, and the credibility of U.S. science.

Broader Trends in Environmental Mass Torts

These developments reflect several broader trends in environmental and climate-related mass tort litigation:

Shift Toward Corporate Accountability

Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on corporate behavior—especially misinformation, failure to warn, and deceptive marketing—rather than emissions alone. This approach may be more legally viable and emotionally compelling to juries.

International Law as a Litigation Tool

The ICJ’s opinion and similar international rulings are being used to frame climate harm as a human rights violation. This could expand the scope of liability and introduce new legal standards into domestic courts.

Municipalities as Plaintiffs

Cities and counties are leading the charge in climate litigation, often citing local infrastructure damage, public health costs, and emergency response burdens. These cases are testing the limits of tort law and raising questions about causation, foreseeability, and jurisdiction.

Procedural Challenges Remain

Despite growing momentum, climate torts face significant hurdles, including federal preemption, standing, and causation. Courts are still grappling with how to apply traditional tort principles to global, systemic harms.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com. He also insisted *we* include the following acknowledgement: This piece was written with research and drafting assistance provided by Microsoft Copilot™, their AI tool, under the direction, review, editing, and adornment of a human editor — Tom being that human. Also, he wrote this part, in case that wasn’t obvious.
August 8, 2025
Judge finds flaws in motion for an injunction against Trump’s wind turbine order

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Judge finds flaws in motion for an injunction against Trump’s wind turbine order

By: Justin Ward

“The plaintiffs need to return to court with more details about specific harms to specific projects in specific states,” said Judge William Young.

The outlook does not look good for a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump’s effective freeze on new wind turbine production. A federal judge canceled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ proposed temporary injunction this week, citing a lack of “specificity” about the harms experienced by the states that brought the suit.

The District Court of Massachusetts will hear the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss next week. The federal judge’s statements have largely aligned with the Department of Justice’s arguments, so it’s likely that the administration will prevail.

While Judge William Young acknowledged that wind power was an “important industry” and Trump’s hostility to wind was “indisputable,” he said the plaintiffs, which include more than a dozen states, need to return to court with more details about “specific harms to specific projects in specific states.”

Young recognized that if the administration has the power to grant licenses, it is also entitled to withhold them. Trump’s executive order, issued in the first weeks of his term, places a hold on new offshore wind power permits, pending a review. The order does not provide a timeline for that review to be complete, so it would amount to an indefinite freeze on all new wind power in practice.

Trump’s crusade against wind power started during his first term. He has claimed that wind turbines are “kill[ing] the birds” and “driving the whales crazy.” Environmental groups refuted this and other claims in their amicus brief last month, noting that “cats are responsible for thousands of times more bird deaths than are wind turbines.”

However, if the lawsuit does survive next week’s hearing and secures an injunction, legal experts say it will be mostly a symbolic victory because the federal agency that issues permits still has discretion over the speed at which it works, so a freeze will be replaced by a de facto pause.

Justin Ward is a Seattle-based investigative reporter specializing in politics, courts, and criminal justice. His work can be found in national and local media outlets, including USA Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and The Seattle Stranger. He can be reached at justinwardtexan@yahoo.com.

July 29, 2025
Judge finds flaws in motion for an injunction against Trump’s wind turbine order

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Judge finds flaws in motion for an injunction against Trump’s wind turbine order

By: Justin Ward

“The plaintiffs need to return to court with more details about specific harms to specific projects in specific states,” said Judge William Young.

The outlook does not look good for a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump’s effective freeze on new wind turbine production. A federal judge canceled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ proposed temporary injunction this week, citing a lack of “specificity” about the harms experienced by the states that brought the suit.

The District Court of Massachusetts will hear the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss next week. The federal judge’s statements have largely aligned with the Department of Justice’s arguments, so it’s likely that the administration will prevail.

While Judge William Young acknowledged that wind power was an “important industry” and Trump’s hostility to wind was “indisputable,” he said the plaintiffs, which include more than a dozen states, need to return to court with more details about “specific harms to specific projects in specific states.”

Young recognized that if the administration has the power to grant licenses, it is also entitled to withhold them. Trump’s executive order, issued in the first weeks of his term, places a hold on new offshore wind power permits, pending a review. The order does not provide a timeline for that review to be complete, so it would amount to an indefinite freeze on all new wind power in practice.

Trump’s crusade against wind power started during his first term. He has claimed that wind turbines are “kill[ing] the birds” and “driving the whales crazy.” Environmental groups refuted this and other claims in their amicus brief last month, noting that “cats are responsible for thousands of times more bird deaths than are wind turbines.”

However, if the lawsuit does survive next week’s hearing and secures an injunction, legal experts say it will be mostly a symbolic victory because the federal agency that issues permits still has discretion over the speed at which it works, so a freeze will be replaced by a de facto pause.

Justin Ward is a Seattle-based investigative reporter specializing in politics, courts, and criminal justice. His work can be found in national and local media outlets, including USA Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and The Seattle Stranger. He can be reached at justinwardtexan@yahoo.com.

July 29, 2025