Climate Litigation Updates (January 30, 2026)

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Fourth Circuit Vacated Injunctions on Federal Government Terminations of Funding Under Inflation Reduction Act and Other Laws

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court’s injunctions that enjoined federal defendants from freezing or terminating funding awarded to plaintiffs under the Inflation Reduction Act and other laws. Regarding the permanent injunction granted on the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims were essential contractual in nature and subject matter jurisdiction therefore was vested exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. The Fourth Circuit found “no meaningful difference” between the district court’s order and the district court’s order in Department of Education v. California, in which the Supreme Court stayed the district court order pending appeal, finding that the federal government was likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin termination of federal grants because the APA’s “limited waiver of immunity” did not extend to enforcing contractual obligations to pay money. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association “further confirmed” the conclusion that the district court in this case lacked jurisdiction. Regarding the plaintiffs’ claims that the federal defendants’ actions violated separation of powers and the Presentment Clauses of the Constitution and were ultra vires, the Fourth Circuit found that the constitutional claims were merely statutory claims “recast” as constitutional claims and therefore were not reviewable. The Fourth Circuit further found that because the plaintiffs failed to identify a specific prohibition on the freezing or termination of their grants, their ultra vires claim did not fall within “the painstakingly delineated procedural boundaries” of nonstatutory ultra vires review. Because the district court had focused on the freezing and termination of the plaintiffs’ particular grants, the Fourth Circuit did not express a view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ “program cancellation” theory, which alleged that the defendants effectively terminated entire programs that were statutorily mandated. The Fourth Circuit indicated the district court could consider this theory on remand. Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 25-1575 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Appellate Court Affirmed Denial of Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Bids to Dismiss State of Minnesota’s Climate Deception Suit

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of fossil fuel industry defendants’ motions to dismiss the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit alleging that the defendants engaged in a campaign to deceive Minnesota consumers and the public about fossil fuels and climate change. First, the appellate court found that the district court’s exercise of consent jurisdiction under the Minnesota Foreign Corporation Act (MCPA) did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause or dormant Commerce Clause. Regarding the Due Process Clause, the appellate court rejected contentions that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents called into question the exercise of consent jurisdiction. Regarding the dormant Commerce Clause, the appellate court found that the defendants failed to show that the MCFA favored in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests or expressly provided for differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. Second, the appellate court concluded that Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statutes did not apply because the State’s lawsuit sought equitable remedies and not damages and therefore did not fall within the anti-SLAPP statutes’ definition of “judicial claim.” Because there was no judicial claim, an anti-SLAPP motion could not be filed. State v. American Petroleum Institute, No. A25-0407, A25-0408, A25-0410 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2026)

Michigan Federal District Court Dismissed U.S. Action to Block State of Michigan Climate Suit

One day after the Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit alleging that energy industry defendants engaged in a conspiracy to delay the transition to low-carbon transportation and energy (see below under “New Cases and Filings”), the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the United States’ lawsuit seeking to block the State of Michigan from filing a lawsuit seeking damages from fossil fuel companies for climate change harms. The court ruled that at the time the U.S.’s amended complaint was filed, the case was not ripe for judicial review and the United States did not have standing. Regarding ripeness, the court found that the case turned on “contingent future events” and that deferring review would not “impose significant practical harm” on the United States. With respect to standing, the court found that the federal government failed to establish an “existing” or “certainly impending” injury and, moreover, that the U.S. failed to establish a causal connection between its alleged injuries and the State of Michigan’s alleged conduct. United States v. Michigan, No. 1:25-cv-00496 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2026)

Washington Federal Court Ruled that Federal Freeze on Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Funding Was Unlawful

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington vacated and set aside federal actions that froze funding for states National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Under IIJA, the Federal Highway Administration first issued guidance in 2022 for states and localities to deploy electric vehicle infrastructure and states submitted State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans describing how they intended to use NEVI Formula Program funds. The court declared that the rescission of the NEVI Formula Program guidance and suspension of state plans in February 2025 exceeded the federal defendants’ statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, and was done without observance of proper procedure in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Because it had ruled for the plaintiff states and plaintiff-intervenor organizations on their APA claims, the court did not consider their constitutional or ultra vires claims. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot because FHWA had issued new NEVI Formula Program guidance in August 2025 and resumed the program. The court found that the “consequences and effects of the funding freeze still linger” and that funds remained at risk of not being disbursed. In addition to vacating and setting aside the federal actions and declaring the federal actions unlawful, the court found that the plaintiff states established entitlement to injunctive relief and that the intervenor organizations established the need for injunctive relief in all NEVI jurisdictions. Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-00848 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2026)

Federal District Courts Block Enforcement of Federal Orders Suspending Activities at Offshore Wind Projects

In cases related to four offshore wind projects, federal district courts granted preliminary relief to parties challenging orders issued on December 22, 2025 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) directing that activities be suspended at the offshore wind facilities “for reasons of national security.” 

• On January 12, 2026, a federal district court in the District of Columbia granted motions by the developer of the Revolution Wind offshore wind project and the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut for a stay and preliminary injunction of BOEM’s. The court enjoined enforcement of the stop-work order, finding, for reasons stated in court, that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that they were likely to suffer irreparable injury without an injunction, that the balance of equities was in their favor, and that maintaining the status quo was in the public interest. Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-02999 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2026)
• On January 15, 2026, a federal district court in the District of Columbia granted from the bench a motion by the developer of the Empire Wind offshore wind project for a stay and preliminary injunction of BOEM’s order after hearing oral arguments the previous day. Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00004 (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2026)
• On January 16, 2026, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted from the bench Dominion Energy Virginia’s request for a preliminary injunction of BOEM’s order regarding the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project. Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. (E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 2026)
• In addition, a new lawsuit challenging the BOEM order was filed on January 15 by the developer of the Vineyard Wind project offshore of Massachusetts. The complaint asserted violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process requirements of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On January 27, the court stayed the BOEM order. Vineyard Wind 1 LLC v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:26-cv-10156 (D. Mass., filed Jan. 15, 2026)

Court of Federal Claims Stayed Proceedings in States’ Solar for All Breach of Contract Action

The Court of Federal Claims granted the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings in a breach of contract action brought by state recipients of grants under the Solar for All program after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) termination of the program. The United States argued in its motion to stay that principles of judicial economy favored a stay because “a virtually identical group” of state plaintiffs had filed a case in federal district court in Washington seeking a declaration that termination of the Solar for All grants was unlawful. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, contending that the United States was attempting to “have it both ways” by seeking the stay while simultaneously telling the district court that only the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court of Federal Claims granted the U.S.’s motion from the bench after oral argument on January 21, 2026 and imposed the stay until April 21, 2026. The court directed the parties to file a status report by April 13 addressing progress in the district court litigation and steps the Court of Federal Claims must take in this case. Maryland Clean Energy Center v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-01738 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 21, 2026)

Washington District Court Denied Federal Government’s Motion to Transfer Challenge to Solar for All Termination

In the case challenging the termination of the Solar for All program in federal district court for the Western District of Washington, the court denied the federal defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the federal district court for the District of Columbia where an earlier lawsuit had been filed by Harris County, Texas. The court found that “first-to-file” factors weighed against transfer, noting the differences between the parties in each case and the fact that a third case had been filed in the District of Rhode Island before Harris County v. EPA was filed. In addition, the court found that factors of convenience and fairness were either neutral or leaned against transfer. Arizona v. EPA, No. 2:25-cv-02015 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2026)

Supreme Court Declined to Review Ruling that Federal Law Preempted Iowa Counties’ Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by two Iowa counties and county officials seeking review of an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the federal Pipeline Safety Act preempted county ordinances that would regulate portions of a planned carbon dioxide pipeline. Shelby County v. Couser, No. 25-419 (U.S. Jan. 12, 2026)

Environmental Groups Withdrew Challenge to Alaska LNG Project Authorizations After Agencies Issued New Biological Opinions

After the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed newconsultations under the Endangered Species Act for the Alaska LNG Project, Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club moved to voluntarily dismiss their challenge to the original biological opinions. The organizations had contended that the biological opinions did not fully examine and mitigate harms to polar bears, Cook Inlet beluga whales, and North Pacific right whales. The case had been held in abeyance since November 2024, when the Ninth Circuit granted federal respondents’ request for abeyance to allow the Services to reinitiate consultation. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 24-3397 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026)

Oregon Federal Court Invalidated Categorical Exclusion that Exempted Forest Thinning Projects from NEPA Review

On remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal district court for the District of Oregon ruled that the U.S. Forest Service’s 1992 promulgation of a categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for projects that allowed unlimited commercial thinning was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the record did not show that the Forest Service considered the impact of thinning at any scale and that the court therefore could not conclude that the Forest Service engaged in reasoned decision-making regarding the environmental impacts authorized by the categorical exclusion. The court rejected the federal government’s threshold argument that the statute of limitations barred the challenge, as well as arguments that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by laches, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the plaintiffs waived their challenge to the categorical exclusion’s validity by failing to raise it during the administrative process. The court concluded that setting aside the categorical exclusion as to all future Forest Service actions as well as the project approvals challenged in this proceeding was the appropriate remedy. The plaintiffs’ original allegations included that projects that involve commercial logging operations inherently result in more significant environmental effects, including release of stored carbon. Oregon Wild v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:22-cv-01007 (D. Or. Jan. 13, 2026)

Challenge to California In-Use Locomotive Regulation Voluntarily Dismissed After Repeal

After the California Air Resources Board’s repeal of the In-Use Locomotive Regulation became effective on January 1, 2026, two associations representing freight and passenger railroads, California officials, and intervenor environmental groups submitted a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the associations’ lawsuit challenging the regulation. Association of American Railroads v. Sanchez, No. 2:23-cv-001154 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026)

Federal Court Enjoined Colorado Labeling Requirement for Gas Stoves

The federal district court for the District of Colorado granted trade associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction barring the Colorado Attorney General from implementing or enforcing a Colorado law that established requirements for disseminating certain information about air quality and health impacts of indoor gas stoves on stove labels and on internet sites where gas-fueled stoves are sold. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court first concluded that the labeling requirement regulated commercial speech. (The court rejected intervenor defendant Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado’s argument that the labeling requirement was government speech not subject to the First Amendment.) The court further found that the labeling requirement was “objectively controversial because there is robust disagreement by scientific sources concerning the validity of the statements” about health outcomes contained on the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment webpage to which the labels were required to refer people. Because the court found the requirement to be objectively controversial, the court applied strict scrutiny rather than the “less exacting scrutiny” of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Although the court was not persuaded by the trade associations’ contention that the Colorado law’s public health rationale was pretextual and that the true rationale for the rule was to discourage people from using gas-fueled stoves for climate change reasons, the court found that the Attorney General “does not present any conclusive evidence regarding the potential health effects of using gas-fueled stoves” and therefore did not identify “an actual concrete problem” that would establish a compelling government interest. In addition, the court found that the labeling requirement was not narrowly tailored. Because the labeling requirement failed the strict scrutiny test and the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim, the court also found that the trade associations satisfied the irreparable harm and public interest factors of the preliminary injunction test. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser, No. 1:25-cv-02417 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2025)

North Dakota’s Challenge to Biden-Era Restrictions on Federal Coal Development Dismissed as Moot After Congressional Review Act Nullification

On December 19, 2025, the federal district court granted plaintiff North Dakota and federal defendants’ request to dismiss North Dakota’s action challenging a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amended during the Biden administration to restrict future coal development on federal lands in the state. The parties had notified the court that President Trump signed a resolution on December 11, 2025 that disapproved and nullified the amended RMP under the Congressional Review Act. The parties therefore requested that the case be dismissed as moot. North Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00042 (D.N.D. Dec. 19, 2025)

Maryland Federal Court Denied Oil and Gas Industry Intervenors’ Motion to Transfer Endangered Species Act Challenge to Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities to Louisiana

The federal district court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron), American Petroleum Institute, and other industry intervenor defendants to transfer environmental organizations’ challenge to a 2025 biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement prepared under the Endangered Species Act to address federally authorized oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The intervenor defendants argued that the case should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana where Chevron and American Petroleum Institute, along with the State of Louisiana, had filed a lawsuit challenging the 2025 BiOp. The Maryland federal court agreed with the intervenor defendants that the case could have been brought in the Western District of Louisiana but found that the intervenors did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the factors considered when determining whether to grant a venue transfer motion counseled in favor of transfer. In particular, the court afforded the plaintiffs’ choice of venue substantial weight because a portion of the “complained-of conduct” occurred in the District of Maryland, the location of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s headquarters. The court also found that the interest of justice factor weighed against transfer. Although the court agreed with the intervenor defendants that the cases presented similar legal issues and that there was a risk of conflicting rulings, the court found that those factors weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction in this first-filed case. The court also was not persuaded that the case was “a local Louisiana dispute that is best decided by a Louisiana court.” Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 25-cv-1627 (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2025)

After Budget Law Terminated Pennsylvania’s RGGI Participation, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Granted State’s Request to Discontinue Appeal of Ruling that RGGI Regulations Constituted Impermissible Tax

On January 6, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP’s) applications to discontinue its appeal of a Commonwealth Court ruling that concluded that regulations implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in Pennsylvania constituted an unconstitutional tax. PADEP sought to discontinue the appeal after Governor Josh Shapiro signed a 2025-2026 budget law that included a provision abrogating the regulations. Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, No. 106 MAP 2023 (Jan. 6, 2026); Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, No. 107 MAP 2023 (Jan. 6, 2026)

Florida Court Dismissed Youth Plaintiffs’ Climate Case Against Public Service Commission

A Florida Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit in which youth plaintiffs alleged that the Florida Public Service Commission violated their rights under the Florida Constitution by classifying as suitable utilities’ Ten-Year Site Plan reviews that projected use of fossil fuels. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were “nearly identical” to claims dismissed in an earlier case, Reynolds v. State. As in that case, the court concluded that this case must be dismissed under the political question and separation of powers doctrines. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims focused on policy decisions reserved for the Florida Legislature such as the type of fuel to be used to generate electricity and the effects of pollution. The court also found that the plaintiffs “failed to cite any manageable standard” to guide the court in determining whether the Commission’s decisions violated the Constitution. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs’ alleged climate change-related injuries did not satisfy standing requirements for causation and redressability. Barreto v. Florida Public Service Commission, No. 2025 CA 1803 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Jan. 16, 2026)

Court Ordered Climate Scientist Michael Mann to Pay Sanctions for “Bad Faith Litigation Conduct”

In a case brought by climate scientist Michael Man in which a jury found two writers liable for defamation, the District of Columbia Superior Court denied Mann’s motion to reconsider the court’s March 2025 order granting in part the two defendants’ motions for sanctions for “bad faith litigation tactics.” The conduct related to Mann’s attorneys’ use at trial of a demonstrative regarding the amount of losses attributable to the defendants’ defamatory statements. The demonstrative included the amount of $9,713,924.00, when the correct amount was $112,000. The court said that Mann and his attorneys “provided no explanation why they prepared a demonstrative that contained incorrect figures to be used at trial, when they could have very well prepared a demonstrative with the correct figures.” The court found that the attorneys’ explanations for the use of the demonstrative, including that they knew the defendants would make corrections during re-cross examination, “strain credulity”; the court also found that Mann was “ultimately responsible for the conduct of the litigation of his case and it was his responsibility to ensure that the facts of his case were presented truthfully and straightforwardly.” The court ordered Mann to pay one of the defendants $16,762.82 in fees, costs, and fees on fees, and the other defendant $11,404.80. Mann v. National Review, Inc., No. 2012 CA 008263 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 22, 2026)

Oregon Court Rejected Contention that Utility Commission Was Ignoring Grid Decarbonization Policy Objective

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Oregon Public Utility Commission orders regarding the implementation of a 2021 law regarding the decarbonization of Oregon’s electric grid. A renewable energy company argued that the Commission misinterpreted a statutory provision requiring that zero-emission electricity provide ancillary benefits to Oregon communities “to the maximum extent practicable.” The Court of Appeals rejected the company’s characterization of the Commission’s interpretation, finding that it appeared that Commission understood the law to require that it give weight to the policy considerations related to ancillary benefits to communities. The court acknowledged the possibility of future disputes about how to account for those policy considerations in the approval process for electric companies’ clean energy plans but said it would be premature to opine on that issue before the Commission took action. NewSun Energy, LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon, No. A184849 (Or. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2025)

California Appellate Court Affirmed Denial of Bond Validation for Facilities to Convey Water in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s denial of validation of the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) authority to issue revenue bonds for the planning, acquisition, and construction of the Delta Program, which comprises facilities for conveyance of water in, about, and through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The appellate court agreed that the Program’s contours were “too vague” to support the validation request as a modification of the project authorized by statute as the initial component of the statewide water storage and delivery system known as the State Water Project. Because it had denied validation of the bond issuance, the court did not consider cross-appeals by Sierra Club and other parties from the trial court’s denial of their claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. Under CEQA, Sierra Club and other organizations had alleged that an environmental impact report should have been prepared. They noted that DWR initiated the environmental review in January 2020 with issuance of a Notice of Preparation that listed 24 “probably significant environmental effects of the Project,” including changes in greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resiliency to respond to climate change. Sierra Club v. Department of Water Resources, No. C100552 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2025)

New York Court Declined to Give DEC More Time to Issue Regulations to Implement Climate Law

A New York trial court denied the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) motion requesting that the court extend the deadline the court had set for DEC to promulgate regulations that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Action mandated be issued by January 1, 2024. The court in October 2025 ordered DEC to come into compliance by February 6, 2026. The court found that DEC’s motion requesting the extension was moot because the court’s order had been stayed by operation of law when DEC filed a notice of appeal. The court also found that DEC did not meet the legal threshold for a motion to renew or reargue. The court said it had declined to take on oversight of the regulatory process and had instead afforded DEC time to seek legislative changes to the deadline. The court found that the “essence” of DEC’s argument in its motion to renew or reargue was “the very same” as its original argument—that it did not want “to be governed by a hard deadline.” Citizen Action of New York v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 903160-25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 8, 2026)

U.S. NEW CASES AND OTHER FILINGS

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Sought Review of Biden Administration’s Energy Standards for Consumer Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters

Three trade associations and a company that manufactures and sells gas-powered furnaces and other appliances filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a D.C. Circuit decision upholding Biden-era amendments to the energy efficiency standards for consumer furnaces and commercial water heaters. The petitioners presented two questions: (1) “[w]hether courts may defer to an agency’s legal interpretation of a statute because an agency applied the statute to undisputed facts, despite this Court’s holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that courts must construe statutes without deference to agency statutory interpretations” and (2) “whether an appliance’s ability to operate in existing homes and buildings without renovation is a ‘performance characteristic’ that [the Energy Policy Conservation Act] prohibits the Department [of Energy] from eliminating.” American Gas Association v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 25-879 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026)

Petitioners Said EPA Grant of Regulatory Primacy to West Virginia for Carbon Sequestration Wells Was Unlawful 

Petitioners filed an opening brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the court should vacate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision approving the State of West Virginia’s application for primary enforcement authority for Class VI Underground Injection Control Wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA’s approval gave the State regulatory authority over carbon sequestration wells. The petitioners argued that EPA’s determination that the State would implement the Class VI program consistently with the federal program was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law “because EPA failed to grapple with record evidence that West Virginia had failed to effectively implement at least three similar federal environmental programs.” In addition, the plaintiffs argued that EPA’s approval violated the SDWA because the State’s program was not “at least as stringent” as the federal regulations. West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization v. Zeldin, No. 25-1384 (4th Cir., filed Jan. 21, 2026)

Michigan Attorney General Filed Antitrust Suit Against Energy Industry Defendants for Alleged Scheme to Delay Transition from Fossil Fuels

The Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit against four energy companies and American Petroleum Institute alleging that they engaged in a “conspiracy to delay the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy” in violation of federal and Michigan antitrust laws. The complaint alleged that defendants knew by approximately 1980 that continued reliance on fossil fuels would impose “negative externalities,” including climate change, and also were “aware that clean energy alternatives were feasible and inevitable, and emergence of these alternatives would increase competition in the transportation and primary energy markets,” reducing defendants’ and fossil fuels’ market dominance. The complaint alleged anticompetitive conduct by the defendants in the transportation sector that included shutting down their own research and development programs into vehicle electrification technologies, engaging in patent litigation to delay deployment of such technologies, and restraining the buildout of electric vehicle infrastructure such as charging stations. Alleged anticompetitive conduct directed at “primary energy” products for heating and cooling buildings included “capturing key technologies” and abandoning defendants’ own “commercially viable ventures” to suppress growth of renewable energy sources; coordinating the diversion of capital for “low carbon” energy to “infrastructure and applications that entrench fossil fuel use, such as natural gas and carbon capture”; coordinating to disseminate misleading information regarding fossil fuel risks and casting doubt on substitutes; conspiring to infiltrate and misdirect information-producing institutions to influence consumer preferences and public discourse about energy sources and climate change; and hiring hackers to undermine efforts to expose the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. The complaint alleged that because of the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct, Michigan suffers and will continue to suffer from climate change and other negative externalities, including rising insurance premiums and depressed home values. The complaint asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The relief sought included compensatory and trebled damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. People of the State of Michigan v. BP p.l.c., No. 1:26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich., filed Jan. 23, 2026)

Plaintiffs Challenged “Newest Iteration” of Oil and Gas Leasing Program on Coastal Plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

In a lawsuit first filed in 2020 to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s August 2020 authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, three environmental organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint on January 13, 2026 to also challenge the “newest iteration” of the authorization of the program, which the Secretary issued in October 2025. The plaintiffs assert that both the 2020 and 2025 programs exceeded congressional authorization and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Wilderness Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that “[t]he Coastal Plain, like the rest of America’s Arctic, is already profoundly stressed by the effects of climate change” and that “[c]onsumption of fossil fuels—encouraged by expanded oil and gas development such as that proposed by Defendants the Secretary of the Interior and BLM in the Program—is the main cause of climate change.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ NEPA review “ignored or obscured potential harm to tundra, permafrost, and other landscape features, water quantity and quality, air quality, the climate, wilderness characteristics, and wildlife” and “included a misleadingly narrow range of alternatives.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. Burgum, No. 3:20-cv-00205 (D. Alaska Jan. 13, 2026)

United States Challenged California Setback Law for Fossil Fuel Operations

The United States filed a lawsuit challenging a California law (SB 1137) enacted in 2022 that restricts fossil fuel operations within 3,200 feet of certain “sensitive receptors” such as homes, schools, and health care facilities. SB 1137’s legislative findings cited “increasing impacts of climate change” and “a growing body of research” showing “direct health impacts from proximity to oil extraction,” that disproportionately impact communities most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. The law stated that “[f]urther assistance must be provided to frontline communities that have been most polluted by the fossil fuel industry by cleaning up pollution, remediating negative health impacts, and building resilient infrastructure to prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change.” The U.S. asserted that federal law preempted SB 1137’s restrictions because their “categorical prohibition on certain fossil fuel development on federal lands … stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s objectives … to promote the responsible development of fossil fuel resources on federal lands,” as reflected in the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and other federal statutes. In addition, the U.S. asserted that the California law conflicted with the Constitution’s Property Clause by interfering with property interests in the federal mineral estate and violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by directly regulating the federal government. United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-00107 (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 14, 2026)

Youth Plaintiffs Challenged 2025 Montana Laws as Violating Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment

After the Montana Supreme Court declined in December 2025 to exercise its original jurisdiction to consider claims that 2025 amendments to state environmental laws were unconstitutional under the court’s 2024 decision in Held v. State, youth plaintiffs filed a complaint in Montana District Court seeking to have the amended laws declared facially unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Department of Environmental Quality to prepare and develop a comprehensive plan for the prevention, abatement, and control of greenhouse gas emissions in Montana “that conforms with its affirmative obligation to maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.” In addition, they asked the court to enjoin issuance of air quality permits for fossil fuel projects until the plan is developed absent “a showing that there is a compelling state interest for the project and the project is the least onerous means to achieve that compelling state interest.” Held v. State, No. DV-4-2026-0000007-OC (Mont. Dist. Ct., filed Jan. 16, 2026)