Federal Agency Actions and Litigation

On 18 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that Texas and a mineral owner could not challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) approval of a temporary nuclear waste storage facility in Texas because they had not formally intervened in the NRC licensing process. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the matter on procedural grounds and avoided addressing whether the NRC has the authority, under federal law, to license such interim facilities. This decision reversed the Fifth Circuit's ruling, which had allowed the challenge and questioned the NRC’s legal authority to approve temporary storage sites under the Atomic Energy Act and Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

On 16 June 2025, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement issued a proposal to rescind the 2024 “10-Day Notice and Corrective Action” rule (2024 Rule), which governs how states and the federal government work together to oversee surface coal mining. The proposal is in direct response to President Trump’s executive order issued on 20 January 2025 titled “Unleashing American Energy”, which directed the Interior Secretary to take action to revise or rescind the 2024 Rule. The 2024 Rule had reversed a Trump administration 2020 rule that gave states more response time and restricted notices to site-specific violations. Public comments will be accepted on the proposal through July 16, 2025.

On 11 June 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced two separate rulemaking proposals to rescind two major Biden administration Clean Air Act (CAA) rules: one to rescind a Biden administration rule that set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for power plantsand another to rescind a Biden administration rule that updated the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) in 2024 for power plants. In doing so, the EPA is proposing that power sector GHG emissions do not significantly endanger public health - meaning the CAA does not permit such regulation - and that previous approaches were overly burdensome, particularly on the coal industry. This move would roll back requirements for carbon dioxide reduction through measures like carbon capture and revert MATS to 2012 standards.

That same day, a New Jersey federal judge dismissed an amended lawsuit by an advocacy group seeking to block federal approvals of offshore wind project activities, claiming they harm marine life. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate personal harm sufficient for legal standing, noting that their whale-watching experiences were insufficient to establish impact. The district court ruled that federal agencies had required developers to take steps to minimize harm to whales and other marine life and that several challenged permits were either short-term or expired, making them largely unreviewable. The judge also highlighted increased uncertainty about future offshore wind project approvals due to President Trump’s recent executive memorandum issued on 20 January 2025 titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects,” which halted new or renewed wind leases.

On 6 June 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final interpretive rule titled “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program,” which explains that vehicle fuel economy standards set by the Biden administration were overly stringent because they improperly included electric vehicles in their calculations. The DOT explains that earlier standards exceeded statutory authority by factoring in the effects of electric, hydrogen, and other alternative fuel vehicles, as well as credit trading, which the DOT claims are explicitly prohibited under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Among other things, the rule identifies factors statutorily prohibited from consideration when setting maximum feasible fuel economy standards under applicable federal laws and describes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) authority to bring the CAFE program into compliance with applicable federal statutory requirements in accordance with President Trump’s recent executive order issued on 20 January 2025 titled “Unleashing American Energy.” Although the rule doesn’t change existing CAFE or medium- and heavy-duty standards, the NHTSA is now preparing to revise these standards for model years dating back to 2022.

On 5 June 2025, the DOI announced the allocation of $130 million under the Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program to support states and tribes in redeveloping former coal mine sites. The funding enables eligible states and tribes to partner with community and economic development organizations to advance projects for energy infrastructure, manufacturing, recreation, and commercial redevelopment at legacy mining locations. Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia will each receive $28.7 million; Alabama, Ohio, and Virginia will each get $11 million; and the Crow Tribe, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation will receive $3.67 million each.

On 4 June 2025, DOT announced that it is preparing to withdraw nearly $4 billion in federal funding from the California high-speed rail project after a federal review found persistent delays, mismanagement, and rising costs, indicating “no viable path” to timely completion. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) concluded that the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) had defaulted on grant terms, citing that the original 800-mile project is now reduced to a 171-mile stretch from Bakersfield to Merced, which may not be fully operational until 2034. The CHSRA has 37 days to respond before the grants may be terminated. CHSRA disputed the findings, asserting its commitment to the project and noting that most funding comes from the state, which has proposed $1 billion per year for the next two decades. The CHSRA pledged to formally respond to the FRA’s notice and defend its progress.

On 3 June 2025, a coalition of groups opposed to the Empire Wind offshore wind project near New York and New Jersey sued the Trump administration in New Jersey federal court, alleging that officials failed to justify its recent decision to lift a stop-work order on the project. Construction on Empire Wind, which was federally approved in early 2024, was halted in mid-April after President Trump called for an investigation into potential environmental and economic impacts. However, four weeks later, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) allowed work to resume without explanation, which the plaintiffs claim violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs allege that unresolved concerns about navigation, fisheries, and endangered whales, as well as the eligibility of the lease awarded to the sponsor of the project (a Norwegian company), remain unaddressed. The lawsuit seeks to restore the stop-work order and to void BOEM's lease to the sponsor.

On 2 June 2025, the DOI announced plans to rescind a 2024 Biden administration rule restricting fossil fuel production in Alaska’s 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve, asserting that the rule imposes undue barriers to energy development and exceeds the DOI’s statutory authority under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA). According to the announcement, the NPRPA, enacted during the 1970s oil crisis, was intended to foster competitive oil and gas leasing while protecting surface resources. Pursuant to the proposed rule rescission, the DOI would revert to the regulations in place prior to the 2024 Biden administration rule. The DOI made this announcement in alignment with President Trump’s recent executive orders issued on 20 January 2025 titled “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential” and “Declaring a National Emergency.”

On 30 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced it has rescinded $3.7 billion in funding for 24 clean energy projects issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, including a prominent hydrogen initiative in Texas and several major carbon capture projects across the country. DOE Secretary Chris Wright explained that most of these awards, many granted late in the Biden administration, did not align with national energy needs, were deemed economically unviable, and would not generate adequate investment returns.

On 29 May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and upheld the federal government's approval of Uinta Basin Railway project intended to transport crude oil out of Utah's Uinta Basin. In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court held that (1) courts are to give agencies substantial judicial deference in NEPA cases and should not micromanage agencies’ choices, such as scope, alternatives, and amount of detail, so long as they fall within a “broad zone of reasonableness”; and (2) NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the project in question. Further, an agency is not required to assess the environmental effects of separate projects simply because those projects and effects might not materialize but for the project at hand or are in some sense foreseeable. For more information see Linklaters’ client alert.

On 28 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) informed the Fifth Circuit that it is initiating a new rulemaking to replace Biden administration regulations that permit retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors - such as climate change and social justice - when selecting investments. This development follows a legal challenge by Utah and 24 other Republican-led states, who argue that the 2022 rule, which relaxed Trump-era ESG restrictions, violates federal administrative laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Although a Texas federal judge upheld the rule in September 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated this decision in July 2024 in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, which overturned the Chevron doctrine that had allowed federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting statutes. The DOL now promises to move quickly to revise the rule.

On 21 May 2025, the EPA issued guidance to states and tribes warning that their authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) should be used strictly to ensure water quality compliance, not to veto or condition projects based on non-water-related concerns such as air quality, traffic, noise, project preference, or economic factors. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that some states had previously sought to use Section 401 to block energy, critical mineral, and infrastructure projects for reasons not grounded in the CWA. The memorandum clarified that decisions on certification must be tied directly to water quality considerations and made within a “reasonable period of time,” not exceeding one year. The EPA announced plans to publish a Federal Register notice and recommendations docket to address additional challenges and uncertainties with the 2023 Section 401 rule, which is currently subject to legal challenge by several Republican-led states and industry groups in Louisiana federal court. The litigation has been stayed while the EPA reviews the rule.

Presidential Actions and Litigation

On 16 June 2025, President Trump signed an executive order formalizing a trade deal between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Under the agreement, the U.S. has agreed to cut tariffs from 25% to 10% on 100,000 imported British automobiles and auto parts while also removing tariffs on certain aerospace goods. In exchange, the U.K. has agreed to grant U.S. exporters - especially those in the agricultural sector-expedited access to British markets and has also agreed to future discussions on meeting American security requirements for steel and aluminum supply chains and negotiating “significantly preferential treatment” of British pharmaceuticals.

That same day, the nation’s largest association of lawyers sued numerous federal officials and departments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Trump administration has used the power of the executive office to “coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes and policy positions” it opposes. The lawsuit specifically points out the administration’s use of executive orders, public statements, and other actions to create “pervasive fear” in the legal profession. This lawsuit comes after several victories by law firms seeking to overturn executive orders targeting them, which we covered in our April and June newsletters.

On 13 June 2025, Chinese and U.S. officials met to discuss frameworks for a “trade truce” that could benefit both countries. Announcing this framework on social media, President Trump revealed that the U.S. agreed to ease restrictions on Chinese student visas, among other things, in exchange for increased access to Chinese rare earth elements. In particular, President Trump’s announcement details that U.S. tariffs would be set at 55% on Chinese goods (up from 30%) while China's tariffs would remain at 10%. Importantly, however, this agreement is still subject to review by Presidents Trump and Xi.

On 6 June 2025, a split panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked a South Carolina federal judge’s order restoring 32 congressionally funded grants that were frozen by the Trump administration. The Fourth Circuit held that the government was likely to succeed in its argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. However, the decision did not address the merits of the Trump administration’s activities and noted that the stay would only be in effect while the case is on appeal.

On 30 May 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s emergency motion to stay a federal injunction blocking President Trump’s executive order mandating large-scale staff reductions across federal agencies. The government has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the injunction interferes with “bedrock principles and other well-established doctrines”; however, plaintiffs - a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits and local governments - contend that the federal government is unlikely to succeed on the merits, the order likely exceeds President Trump’s constitutional and statutory authorities, and the public interest overwhelmingly disfavors a stay. Recently, the district judge who originally issued the injunction stated that planned staff reductions of the State Department would violate the order, noting that she is “not persuaded” by the government's assertion that the department's reorganization was planned before the order. The emergency motion is still pending.

That same day, the Trump administration revealed plans to use the DOE’s $400 billion green bank - originally targeted for elimination during Trump’s first term - to finance new loans for nuclear reactors, geothermal projects, and critical minerals as outlined in its fiscal year 2026 budget request. The plan prioritizes funding for small and advanced nuclear reactors that have faced market barriers, with the DOE seeking authorization for more than $67 billion in loan guarantees and other financial support over the next two fiscal years. Additionally, the administration requested $750 million for the costs associated with making these loans. The budget also proposes rescinding approximately $2.3 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Direct Loan Program - after the program’s funds were already proposed to be cut in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” tax and spending bill passed in the House - effectively terminating the initiative, which previously provided a $465 million loan to Tesla in 2010 and expanded significantly under the Biden administration.

On 29 May 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down certain tariffs implemented by President Trump, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not impart “unbounded authority” on the president. The tariffs, which President Trump stated were implemented to deal with threats posed by international criminal cartels, set 25% duties on Mexican and Canadian products and 20% duties for Chinese products, as well as a lower 10% rate on Canadian energy and energy resources. However, the Court ruled that the law does not authorize “worldwide” or “retaliatory” tariffs. On 10 June 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed this decision pending appeal, with oral argument scheduled for 31 July 2025.

That same day, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia similarly ruled in a separate tariffs lawsuit brought by various U.S. toymakers that the IEEPA does not empower the president to impose tariffs of this nature. Relying on the Court of International Trade’s decision, the Court stated that the “power to regulate is not the power to tax,” and “[t]he Constitution treats the power to regulate and the power to impose tariffs separately because they are not substitutes.” This decision has since been appealed by the Trump administration to the D.C. Circuit. However, the Federal Circuit’s stay (as described above) of the International Trade Court’s decision led to a stay in this case as well. This led to the plaintiff toymakers in this case to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the appeal on a fast-track consideration basis before the D.C. Circuit could do so. However, on 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the fast-track consideration request, and the appeal will remain pending before the D.C. Circuit first.

On 28 May 2025, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) withdrew its Biden-era guidance directing federal agencies to consider climate change and environmental impacts in reviews conducted under NEPA. The CEQ stated that the guidance is “inconsistent with the objectives articulated” in President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order.

Climate Change Litigation

On 29 May 2025, a group of 22 youths filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging President Trump’s recent executive orders that expand fossil fuel development and roll back climate policies, alleging violations of their constitutional rights. The complaint argues that President Trump’s orders - which declared a national energy emergency, accelerated fossil fuel permitting, and rescinded climate-focused measures - violate the youths’ Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty, deliberately increase GHG emissions, and unlawfully override laws such as the CAA. Plaintiffs claim the orders exceed presidential authority and directly harm current and future generations, specifically citing policy changes affecting coal projects in Montana. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Oil & Gas Litigation

On 3 June 2025, a New Mexico state appellate court dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the state failed to adequately control pollution caused during the extraction and production of oil and natural gas in violation of the New Mexico State Constitution. The Court found inter alia that pollution control policymaking is within the exclusive authority of the legislature and the relief plaintiffs seek in their complaint exceeds the boundary of that which the judiciary is authorized to grant.

Climate Disclosure Legislation and Regulations

On 12 June 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) withdrew over a dozen Biden-era rule proposals—including those on cybersecurity risk management, environmental disclosures, equity market reform, and enhanced requirements for funds marketed as ESG investments—as part of new Chair Paul Atkins’ effort to reshape the agency’s regulatory agenda. Among the withdrawn measures were “Regulation Best Execution,” an order competition rule for broker-dealers, and a proposal that would have required ESG-focused funds to disclose their portfolios’ GHG emissions and substantiate ESG-related claims, bringing U.S. regulation closer to European standards. These withdrawals reflect the deregulatory focus of the current administration, following prior decisions not to defend contested climate rules, and move the SEC toward what Atkins described as a “clean slate” and an innovation-friendly approach.

Among these rules, the SEC withdrew a long-proposed rule seeking to combat greenwashing in ESG funds. The so-called “Names Rule” was intended to apply to certain registered investment companies and business development companies, requiring that they could only use a name suggesting an investment focus in certain types of investments, industries, countries or geographic regions, or investments that have particular characteristics if, among other requirements, they have adopted policies to invest, under “normal circumstances,” at least 80% of the value of their assets in investments in accordance with the investment focus that the fund’s name suggests. However, following a six-month extension for compliance with the rule in April, the SEC officially stated that it does not intend to issue final rules with respect to these proposals and noted that any future regulatory action would be issued as a new proposed rule. The SEC’s previous extension was discussed in our ESG Newsletter April 2025.

On 12 June 2025, New York’s Senate failed to pass two major climate reporting bills - SB S3456 and SB S3697A, which closely mirrored California’s requirements - before the legislative session ended, despite Democrats holding a supermajority. After California adopted climate reporting requirements in 2023, expectations rose for other states to follow suit, especially after the SEC rolled back federal climate risk rules following the 2024 Trump election win. Advocates focused their efforts on Democrat-controlled states, particularly New York, given its economic influence and political alignment. However, this setback - mirrored in other states like Colorado - reflects a growing, bipartisan resistance to mandatory sustainability reporting at the state level, countering earlier assumptions that state legislation would offset federal rollbacks. Coupled with ongoing international debates and proposed rollbacks, particularly concerning the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), these developments suggest California may remain isolated in mandating climate disclosures for the foreseeable future.

On 29 May 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) affirmed statutory disclosure deadlines under SB 253 (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and SB 261 (Climate-Related Financial Risk Act) during a virtual public workshop, where it announced it is working to publish regulations by the end of the year. This further delays the original 1 January 2025 deadline for CARB to adopt implementing regulations, which was extended to 1 July 2025 in September 2024 by an amendment bill (SB 219). However, CARB noted that there will be no delay in the following timelines for reporting disclosures: (1) Scope 1 and 2 disclosures required starting in 2026 for fiscal year 2025 and (2) Scope 3 emissions required in 2027 for fiscal year 2027. CARB also announced that there will be no penalties in 2026 for companies showing a good faith effort to comply with SB 253 and retain all data relevant to GHG emissions reporting for their prior fiscal year. It stated that companies may use existing data for initial 2026 emissions reports.

State Anti-ESG Actions

On 3 June 2025, the Texas Comptroller’s office removed BlackRock from its list of companies subject to divestment for "boycotting energy companies" after BlackRock exited climate-focused investment groups and updated its energy investment policies. This list was created as part of an anti-environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement, which has gained traction in Republican-led states since 2022, with Texas at the forefront due to its role as the largest net energy supplier in the United States. Texas law mandates that the Comptroller must regularly update this list and allows companies 90 days to cease boycotting energy companies to avoid divestment by state entities. Although BlackRock was initially included on the 2022 list, the Texas Comptroller welcomed its eventual policy changes, including withdrawal from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative and a reduction in oil and gas investment restrictions, crediting Texas’s leadership for a “monumental shift” in the sector. Now, 15 companies (notably major international banks and asset managers) remain on the list, along with hundreds of specific funds. BlackRock thanked the Comptroller for the resolution and highlighted its continued significant investment in Texas’s economy.

DEI Developments and Litigation

On 16 June 2025, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered an oral ruling blocking the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from terminating hundreds of grant programs to universities, hospitals, and other organizations. The action stemmed from a lawsuit filed by sixteen states, which alleged that the Defendants unlawfully delayed grant application reviews and ended previously approved grants, in violation of the Constitution and the APA. In his remarks on the record, the judge noted that he had never encountered such “palpable” racial and LGBTQ discrimination by the government, and criticized the NIH for relying on unsupported, conclusory statements when justifying the cancellation of grants connected to vaccines, transgender issues, diversity and inclusion, COVID-19, and climate change. This decision was formalized in a court order dated 23 June 2025.

On 5 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision removing evidentiary barriers for majority group member plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits. Prior to this ruling, majority-group member plaintiffs were required to make an additional showing that their employer is an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” However, the Court’s unanimous decision clarifies that plaintiffs who are not discrete and insular minorities are not subject to heightened pleading standards under Title VII - stating that the language of the law applies to all individuals without a majority/minority distinction.

On 19 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the establishment of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which aims to utilize the False Claims Act to investigate and prosecute recipients of federal funds that “knowingly violate federal civil rights laws.” This includes policies that promote anti-Semitism and “illegal DEI,” which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission outlined earlier this year.

Greenwashing Litigation

On 6 June 2025, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit revived drivers’ claims alleging that an American automotive manufacturer and a German engineering and technology company deceptively marketed certain vehicles as environmentally friendly. While the plaintiffs’ claims were originally dismissed due to federal preemption, the Sixth Circuit stated that the remaining claims may proceed if they are based on theories existing independently of the EPA’s emissions standards. This eight-year long case will be remanded back to federal district court in Michigan to determine whether such an independent basis exists.

On 28 May 2025, consumers filed putative class action lawsuits in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York federal courts alleging that a multinational consumer goods corporation deceptively marketed its commitment to environmental causes. The complaints allege that the defendant’s messaging implied that its products were environmentally responsible and utilized conservationist methods in their production, when in reality they contribute to “forest degradation,” misleading use of environmentally focused certifications, and clearcutting practices. The plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, as well as restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees.

EPA Litigation

On 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a D.C. Circuit decision in a case brought by fuel producers challenging EPA’s approval of California California's CAA waivers that require automakers to increase electric vehicle production and reduce production of gasoline-powered vehicles with a goal of decreasing fuel emissions. The D.C. Circuit held that the fuel producers lacked Article III standing, finding that they failed to satisfy redressability by establishing that automakers would likely respond to invalidation of the regulations by producing fewer electric vehicles and more gasoline powered vehicles. SCOTUS disagreed, holding that the fuel producers do have Article III standing and have demonstrated injury, causation, and redressability by showing that decreased purchases of fuel for gasoline-powered vehicles resulting from California’s regulations constitutes monetary injury and invalidating the regulations would therefore likely result in more revenue from additional fuel sales.

On 18 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in a decision that disputes under the CAA, if they claim to have nationwide effect, should be heard only in the D.C. Circuit, rather than regional circuit courts. This decision comes from cases initiated by small refiners against EPA for denying biofuel waivers.

That same day, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that state-level disputes over ozone air quality standards belong in regional circuit courts. This decision comes from a case against EPA by Utah and Oklahoma over the rejection of their ozone control plans.

On 17 June 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that EPA exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in terminating certain “environmental and climate justice block grants” without providing a reasoned explanation beyond a shift in administrative priorities away from “environmental justice.” The judge found that EPA’s blanket termination letters, which used generic language untethered to the circumstances of the affected groups, violated the APA by lacking proper justification for reversing established policy directed by Congress. The three affected environmental organizations had already committed substantial efforts and subgrants under these programs before EPA abruptly halted funding in February. The judge vacated the grant terminations and remanded the matter to EPA for further review but denied a permanent injunction, stressing that EPA’s decision directly conflicted with congressional mandates to fund environmental justice projects.

On 12 June 2025, environmental groups sued President Trump in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over his decision to exempt 68 coal-fired power plants in 23 states from the stricter 2024 MATS rule. The groups argue that the president lacked legal authority under the CAA to issue the exemptions, since Section 112(i)(4) only allows such action if the required pollution control technology is unavailable and national security is at stake - neither of which, they claim, was demonstrated. The groups allege the exemption was instead a political favor aimed at deregulating the coal industry.

That same day, California and 10 other states sued the Trump administration in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California shortly after he signed resolutions repealing California's CAA waivers, which allowed the state to set its own stringent vehicle emissions standards. The complaint alleges that the actions were unconstitutional, irrational, and politically motivated. The states claim the administration and Congress unlawfully targeted three EPA-approved waivers for zero-emission vehicle mandates and stricter nitrogen oxide standards by invoking the Congressional Review Act, which they argue does not apply to state waivers but only to federal rules. The lawsuit, which criticizes the move as a retaliatory and unprecedented attack on state authority, seeks to void the resolutions and maintain California’s authority to regulate vehicle emissions.

On 21 May 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a challenge brought by several environmental groups against EPA’s decision to approve Louisiana's request for primary enforcement responsibility (“primacy”) of carbon sequestration wells, finding the groups lacked standing due to insufficient evidence of imminent injury. The panel held that the groups' claims about potential harms from Louisiana’s management of Class VI injection wells were too speculative and noted that neither organizational nor associational standing had been established, as any alleged reallocation of resources did not amount to direct interference with core activities. The panel emphasized that possible economic, health, property, or recreational harms cited by the groups required too much guesswork to link directly to EPA decision.

Share this:

ESG Newsletters

Environment, Social and Governance

ESG Newsletters

​

Contributions

​

Contributions

​

​

Environment, Social and Governance

ESG Newsletters

Contributions

Contributions