On April 9, 2025, the White House published a new Memorandum entitled “Directing The Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” aimed at identifying and reviewing unlawful or potentially unlawful regulations for potential repeal. The Memorandum avers that illegal, unnecessary, and onerous regulations impede the Administration’s objectives of promoting economic growth and American innovation, and impose massive costs

On the evening of April 9, 2025, the Trump administration released a pair of deregulatory executive actions that could have major implications for any industry subject to federal rules — and are also likely to be a magnet for litigation. These orders come fast on the heels of an April 8 executive order, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” which announces actions to curtail state and local laws and policies focused on climate change and environmental justice.

On April 8, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit extend the abeyance in the challenge to EPA’s Final Rule establishing PFAS MCLs. The petitioners and respondent-intervenors do not oppose the request.

This case, which challenges EPA’s PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (89 Fed. Reg. 32532,

On March 12, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s intention to reconsider 31 environmental regulations, describing the effort as the “single most impactful day of deregulation in EPA history.” While the scope of this initiative spans air, water, and climate regulations, the most consequential actions—legally and practically—center on a handful of cross-cutting programs and sector-specific rules.

In a published opinion filed March 27, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a writ petition, and held that two screening thresholds of significance for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts adopted by the County of San Diego as part of its 2022 Transportation Study Guide were invalid because they were unsupported by any substantial evidence.  Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. County of San Diego (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1257.