On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively the “Services”) published a notice in the Federal Register of a proposed rulemaking that would rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The ESA prohibits “take” of threatened and endangered species.
Fed up with Federal Rules? OMB Implements a Federal Deregulation Idea Solicitation Process on White House Urging.
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
SCOTUS Strikes Down “End-Result” Limitations in NPDES Permits
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
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes to List the Monarch Butterfly as Threatened, Seeks Comments on Developing a Final Rule
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)
The Chevron Doctrine’s Gone, but the APA Lives On
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
Supreme Court 2024: Key Rulings Reshape Federal Regulatory Authority
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
EPA Reconsiders New Risk Management Program Regulations, but Regulations Remain in Effect
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
Restart the Clock: SCOTUS Expands the Timeframe to Challenge Agency Actions
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
SEC v. Jarkesy: In-House Adjudicators are Out and the Jury is In
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 and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the agency that delegated enforcement of these acts, which until 2010, had to occur in a court of law. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) which allowed the SEC to impose penalties through in-house proceedings. These in-house proceedings look similar to those of other agencies, and typically take place in front of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who is employed by the agency but swears to remain impartial. Sound familiar? This framework is much like the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ALJ and Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) paradigm.Continue Reading SEC v. Jarkesy: In-House Adjudicators are Out and the Jury is In
Ohio v. EPA: SCOTUS Issues Stay in EPA’s Multi-State Air FIP
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
SCOTUS Speaks: Agency Deference is Out, Judicial Independence is In
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 defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.”[1] Chevron cannot be reconciled with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by presuming that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations to agencies. Chevron was decided in 1984. The APA was adopted in 1946.
Moving forward, courts are no longer required to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the federal statute it administers when that statute is silent or ambiguous, unless the statute expressly grants discretionary authority to the federal agency. The Court’s ruling will only apply moving forward and prior cases decided using the Chevron doctrine will not be affected by the Court’s ruling.Continue Reading SCOTUS Speaks: Agency Deference is Out, Judicial Independence is In