New statute allows the government to recover costs and natural resource damages from a broad set of PRPs.
By Gary P. Gengel, Thomas C. Pearce, G. Jack Mathews, and Gina Kwon
On May 9, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a broad array of amendments to the state’s Environmental Conservation Law sections pertaining to the Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site program, also known as the state Superfund program (the Amendments). The Amendments address (1)
On June 4, 2025, Latham & Watkins and Integral Consulting discussed regulatory, insurance, and litigation developments for wildfires in 2025.
By Marc T. Campopiano, Robin M. Hulshizer, and Steven B. Lesan
In light of the recent California wildfires, companies in the state and across the nation must navigate more complex regulatory regimes when managing and responding to wildfire risks. In addition, wildfires continue to be a serious threat to the public and environment, affecting air quality, amplifying the
The decision emphasizes the importance of judicial deference to agencies on NEPA and narrows the scope of environmental analyses.
By Nikki Buffa, Devin M. O’Connor, Jennifer K. Roy, Janice M. Schneider, Reilly Nelson, and Samantha Yeager
On May 29, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a decision (Decision) in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975 (2025), significantly narrowing the scope of environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act
Paramount to the ruling in the upcoming May 5, 2025, hearing is the likelihood that strict scrutiny will apply to the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims against SB 253 and SB 261.
By Joshua Bledsoe, Nikki Buffa, Betty M. Huber, and Matthew Green
On February 25, 2025, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.,1 the plaintiffs in the US District Court for the Central
Supremacy Clause and Dormant Commerce Clause claims against SB 253 and SB 261 were dismissed, while claims under the First Amendment proceed to discovery.
By Joshua Bledsoe, Nikki Buffa, Betty M. Huber, and Matthew Green
On February 3, 2025, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.,1 the US District Court for the Central District of California granted the state’s motion to dismiss the
Finch v. Surrey calls for assessment of all likely direct and indirect environmental effects in EIAs, including certain Scope 3 emissions if a reasonable estimate is feasible.
By Paul A. Davies, Michael D. Green, Stephanie Forrest, and James Bee
On 20 June 2024, the UK Supreme Court (the Court) in Finch v. Surrey CC [2024] UKSC 20 considered whether certain downstream emissions fell within the scope of direct or indirect environmental effects for the purposes of an
For the first time, the Court has confirmed that the adverse impacts of climate change fall within the ambit of human rights protection under the European Convention of Human Rights, obliging States to implement effective mitigation measures.
By Paul A. Davies, Sophie J. Lamb KC, Michael D. Green, James Bee, and Stephanie Forrest
On 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights delivered three Grand Chamber rulings in climate change-related cases. These three separate judgments
The Eighth Circuit is poised to determine the fate of the SEC’s final climate regulation, potentially by the end of the year.
By Paul A. Davies, Sarah E. Fortt, and Betty M. Huber
On March 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was selected as the court that will hear challenges against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) over its final climate disclosures rules, which were adopted on March 6.[i]
The court’s decision is the latest development in the litigation over the SEC’s final rules, which have faced numerous legal challenges since their adoption.
By Paul A. Davies, Sarah E. Fortt, and Betty M. Huber
On March 15, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently finalized climate disclosure rules, in response to a March 8 request.[1] Petitioners had requested the stay in light
On appeal of a strike out decision, the Court gives the plaintiff “his day in court” to argue that corporates owe a common law duty of care in tort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
By Sophie J. Lamb KC and Stephanie Forrest
On 7 February 2024, the Supreme Court of New Zealand decided to allow a novel climate change claim to proceed to trial. In Smith v. Fonterra, the Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision of its Court of Appeal