News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States Regulatory Requirements Environmental Litigation

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Allen Matkins

California Environmental Law & Policy Update 6.6.25

Allen Matkins on

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of projects that they perform, fund, or approve — does not...more

Winstead PC

Supreme Court Reins in NEPA Reviews - Clearing the Path for Developers

Winstead PC on

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, No. 23-975, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), sharply limiting the scope of environmental review obligations under the...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies and Streamlines NEPA Requirements

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On May 29, 2025 the Supreme Court issued a decision that has the practical effect of reducing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and making it more likely that agency environmental reviews...more

Nossaman LLP

Rewriting the Rules: The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Clean Water Act Permits

Nossaman LLP on

In this episode of Digging Into Land Use Law, Byron Gee, Willis Hon and Sara Johnson review in detail the recent Supreme Court opinion in City and County of San Francisco vs. EPA and its implications for Clean Water Act...more

Perkins Coie

San Francisco v. EPA: Supreme Court Decides Clean Water Act Permits May Not Include Receiving Water Limits

Perkins Coie on

In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, 604 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 704 (2025), in a 5-4 decision issued on March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down two provisions in San...more

Bracewell LLP

EPA and the Army Make More Waves on WOTUS

Bracewell LLP on

On March 12, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army took steps to address lingering questions about the meaning and implementation of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS)...more

Holland & Hart LLP

Supreme Court Invalidates "End-Result" Provisions in Clean Water Act Discharge Permits

Holland & Hart LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court last week, in a 5-4 decision, held that discharge permit “end-result” requirements—those that make a permittee responsible for the quality of the receiving water into which the permittee discharges—are...more

ArentFox Schiff

A Divided SCOTUS Invalidates Common Provisions of Clean Water Act Permits

ArentFox Schiff on

In the US Supreme Court’s first post-Chevron decision involving the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Supreme Court found against EPA, invalidating ‘end result’ NPDES permit requirements....more

Stinson LLP

Supreme Court Rules for Permit Holders on Age-Old CWA Dispute

Stinson LLP on

In a 5-4 ruling on March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacks authority to impose Clean Water Act (CWA) conditions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides City and County of San Francisco, California v. Environmental Protection Agency

On March 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City and County of San Francisco, California v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-753, holding that Section 1311(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act does not authorize the...more

ArentFox Schiff

DC Circuit Scrutinizes Federal Regulations for Explicit Statutory Hook Even When No “Major Questions” Are Involved

ArentFox Schiff on

A DC Circuit decision related to the US Environmental Protection Agency’ (EPA) hydroflurocarbons (HFC) phase out illustrates that federal regulations face significant scrutiny when reviewed in court even where the regulations...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide