HB Litigation News

Tag: environmental law

  • 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

    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. 

    podcast logo face

    

    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 Hagy
    

    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.
    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
    HB Environmental Update Monday, Dec. 15, 2025 | Feds Step Back, States Step In, Courts Push Back, EPA Wavers
    
			
    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. 
    

    podcast logo face
    

    

    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 Hagy
    

    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.