Whether issued by an authorized State or the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued under the Clean Water Act allows a permittee to discharge pollutants to waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). This week, the Supreme Court clarified in San Francisco v. EPA (Case No. 23-753) that the
Once President-elect Trump and Lee Zeldin settle into leadership at the EPA, everyone expects a shift in environmental policy and protection priorities. In our article we summarize some likely changes, including regulatory rollbacks, reduced focus on environmental justice, and a renewed emphasis on energy dominance. These shifts will impact compliance strategies, permitting, and enforcement priorities.
On December 12, 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) published notice in the Federal Register of a proposed rule to list the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The proposed rule designates proposed critical habitat for the monarch in California and includes an ESA section 4(d)
Many speculated on just how much Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper Bright) would affect agency rulemaking challenges. Well, the D.C. Circuit is showing that that effect maybe milder than expected. Huntsman Petrochemical, the American Chemistry Council, and the Louisiana Chemical Association (Petitioners) tested how a post-Chevron world could look under judicial review of agency
As the Supreme Court’s recent term drew to a close, the Court issued four opinions that promise to reshape the federal regulatory landscape. These decisions—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Ohio v. EPA, and SEC v. Jarkesy—both individually, and in combination, constrain the power of federal agencies
Stoel Rives Summer Associate Maya Ward co-authored this post.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals placed the challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) risk management regulation on hold for 120 days while the EPA reconsiders the concerns raised by challengers. Order, Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 24-1125 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2024). The underlying revisions
Stoel Rives Summer Associate Jessica Wright co-authored this post.
In a landmark decision on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for facial challenges to agency regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) begins when the final agency action injures a plaintiff, not when the regulation is issued. This ruling,
Why do environmental professionals need to know about a recent securities case? Read on for details. In response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to combat securities fraud and increase market transparency. The Securities
Stoel Rives Summer Associate Jessica Wright co-authored this post.
We want to bring to your attention a recent development involving the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of air pollutants. In the case Ohio v. EPA, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the enforcement of the EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), halting the EPA’s ability to
Executive Summary
The decision by the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. ____ (2024) (“Loper”) reads simply: “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not