Climate Litigation Updates (January 7, 2026)

FEATURED U.S. CASES

California Appellate Court Found that Trial Court Erred in Concluding It Lacked Jurisdiction Over Citgo in Municipalities’ Climate Cases

In climate change-based tort lawsuits brought by California municipalities, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order granting Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s (Citgo’s) motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the municipalities’ claims did not arise from or relate to Citgo’s California contacts. The court found that the municipalities demonstrated that Citgo purchased, distributed, and sold fossil fuel products to California consumers via contractual arrangements with other companies, that Citgo promoted the products as Citgo gasoline, and that Citgo “did not include any materials identifying climate-related risks associated with utilizing gasoline.” The appellate court found that “[b]ecause the complaint clearly encompasses claims based upon a duty to warn and asserts that Citgo failed to do so,” the plaintiffs met their burden to demonstrate a connection between Citgo’s California contacts and their claims. The court therefore concluded that specific jurisdiction over Citgo was appropriate. The court also found that Citgo failed to demonstrate that exercise of jurisdiction was unreasonable. In re Fuel Industry Climate Cases (County of San Mateo v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.), No. A172719 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026)

Hawai‘i Trial Court Rejected Fossil Fuel Companies’ Motions to End Honolulu Climate Suit

A Hawai‘i trial court denied motions by fossil fuel companies to dismiss or grant summary judgment to the companies on climate change tort claims asserted by the City and County of Honolulu and Honolulu Board of Water Supply (Honolulu).

The court rejected the companies’ argument that, as a matter of law, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s October 2023 opinion allowing Honolulu to proceed with its lawsuit “expressly limited [Honolulu’s] claims to conduct that occurred in, or that targeted, the State of Hawai‘i.” Based on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court and a footnote in the Supreme Court’s opinion, the court concluded that the Supreme Court understood the scope of Honolulu’s claims, did not geographically limit those claims, and left Honolulu to prove causation at trial.

The court also found that the defendants did not satisfy the requirements for summary judgment on their argument that the statute of limitations barred Honolulu’s claims. Citing Hawai‘i Supreme Court precedent that “summary judgment should not be granted when there is still time for the non-movant to develop evidence for use at trial,” the court found that it “cannot conclude continued discovery efforts would be futile.”

Similarly, the court found that it could not conclude that continued discovery efforts by Honolulu would be futile on issues relevant to defendants’ personal jurisdiction arguments. City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, No. 1CCV-20-0000380 (Haw. Cir. Ct. Jan. 2, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Montana Supreme Court Declined to Exercise Original Jurisdiction to Consider Claims that Post-Held v. State Amendments to Environmental Laws Were Unconstitutional

On December 23, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction to consider the merits of a petition filed 13 days earlier by 13 Montana youth who alleged that 2025 amendments to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Montana Clean Air Act were unconstitutional under the court’s December 2024 ruling in Held v. State. The youth petitioners, who also were plaintiffs in Held v. State, argued in the petition that the 2025 amendments violated their fundamental rights to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution and Held because they “re-blindfold state agencies during MEPA reviews of fossil fuel projects” and unlawfully restrict the prevention and abatement of greenhouse gas air pollution. The petitioners argued that their petition justified an original proceeding before the Montana Supreme Court because (1) it presented an issue of statewide importance due to “ongoing state-wide harms from fossil fuel air pollution,” together with “the high-volume of MEPA reviews” conducted each year; (2) the enactment and implementation of the amendments was “plainly contrary to binding precedent,” including Held; (3) the constitutionality of the amendments presented purely legal questions; (4) “urgent resolution” was required because “every additional ton of GHG emissions emitted as a result of Respondents’ actions exacerbates Petitioners’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries”; and (5) respondents were currently engaged in reviews for large-scale fossil fuel projects and permits and in drafting a “GHG Guidance Document.” The court concluded, however, that the petitioners did not demonstrate why urgency or emergency factors made the normal trial court litigation and appeals process inadequate. The court noted that the petitioners had filed the petition seven months after the amendments took effect. The court acknowledged the petitioners’ argument that development of a factual record was unnecessary due to the factual record already created in Held, but the court found that the petitioners had not addressed why a district court could not address the legal issues “in a timely fashion and permit them to present an appeal in the ordinary course.” Held v. State, No. OP 25-0853 (Mont. Dec. 23, 2025)

En Banc D.C. Circuit to Rehear Challenges to EPA Termination of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants

On December 17, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted petitions for rehearing en banc and vacated its September 2, 2025 decision holding that a federal district court abused its discretion when it granted nonprofit organizations’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a bank that served as the U.S.’s financial agent to continue funding grants awarded to the organizations during the Biden administration under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established by the Inflation Reduction Act. The D.C. Circuit’s December 17 order provided that an April 16, 2025 partial administrative stay was in effect. The court set a schedule for new briefing to be completed on February 17, 2026 and for oral argument to be heard on February 24. Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025)

Hawaii Federal Court Declined to Block State’s Climate Impact Fee from Taking Effect; Ninth Circuit Granted Private Plaintiffs’ and U.S.’s Requests for Injunction Pending Appeal

On December 23, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied motions by cruise industry and local business plaintiffs and by the United States for a preliminary injunction blocking a Hawai‘i law imposing a “climate impact fee” on cruise ship operators. The law—Act 96—extends the State’s transient accommodations tax to cruise ships and also imposes registration and notice requirements. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. On December 4, the court granted the United States’ motion to intervene, finding that the government satisfied the conditions for permissive intervention. In its December 23 decision on preliminary injunction motions filed by the U.S. and by the private plaintiffs and on a motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs’ complaint, the court first concluded that both plaintiff Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)—which is an organization whose members include cruise line brands representing 95% of global cruise capacity—and local business plaintiffs challenging the law had constitutional standing but that the local businesses asserted the rights of third parties and therefore did not have prudential standing. The court also concluded that the United States had standing to bring suit to protect its interest in federal supremacy over interstate maritime commerce. Second, the court concluded that because state mechanisms existed for challenging Act 96’s state tax and county surcharges, the court lacked jurisdiction over CLIA’s claims regarding these provisions under the Tax Injunction Act, though the court concluded that it could retain jurisdiction over CLIA’s challenges to Act 96’s registration fee and notice requirements. The court concluded, however, that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the U.S. claims. Third, the court denied the state defendants’ motion to dismiss the challenges to the registration fee and notice requirements but dismissed the claims against the county defendants, finding that CLIA did not establish that they had anything to do with the registration fee or notice requirements. Regarding the preliminary injunction motions, the court said it could not conclude that CLIA or the federal government were likely to succeed on the merits despite “serious questions” as to whether Act 96’s state tax, county surcharges, and registration fee violate the Constitution’s Tonnage Clause or are preempted by the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884. The court also found that CLIA did not establish a likelihood of success on its First Amendment challenge to Act 96’s notice requirements because the challenge was based on the underlying constitutionality of the tax, surcharges, and fee. Both the U.S. and the private plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed emergency motions for injunctive relief. On December 31, the Ninth Circuit granted the motions and enjoined enforcement of Act 96 pending resolution of the appeals. Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. v. Suganuma, No. 1:25-cv-00367 (D. Haw. Dec. 4 and 23, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Said Issue of Facility Owner’s Obligation to Consider Climate Change Factors Was Question for Trial

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that whether the terms of a permit for a bulk petroleum storage and distribution facility in Providence required consideration of climate change factors was a question of fact to be decided at trial. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing three counts in a citizen suit brought by Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. The defendants had argued that the issuance by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management of a new Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity in 2024 that explicitly imposed climate change-related obligations demonstrated that duties to consider climate change factors did not previously exist. The court concluded, however, that “whether the revised terms clarified a preexisting obligation or instead introduced an entirely new requirement is not a strictly legal exercise.” Instead, the court found that the answer to the question would depend on “facts surrounding regulatory practice, industry expectations, and what conditions were reasonably understood to fall within expected operational parameters of ‘Good Engineering Practices’ and ‘Best Management Practices’ at the time” (which were operative terms for the stormwater pollution prevention plan required by the facility’s permit). The defendants therefore failed to meet the initial burden of demonstrating no genuine dispute of material fact. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US, No. 1:17-cv-00396 (D.R.I. Dec. 23, 2025)

Louisiana Federal Court Certified Class for Constitutional Challenge to Farm Line Conditions at Louisiana State Penitentiary

The federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted a motion for class certification in an action challenging the constitutionality of conditions on the Farm Line at Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as “Angola.” The court characterized the complaint as alleging that incarcerated persons working on the Farm Line “are subject to a risk of increased physical harm due to their extensive and continued exposure to high temperatures and heat indices.” The complaint also includes allegations regarding the intensification of heat exposure due to climate change. The court certified two classes: (1) a “General Class” of all persons incarcerated at Angola who currently are or may in the future be assigned to the Farm Line and (2) an “ADA Subclass” comprising all persons incarcerated at Angola “who have disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities and who currently are, or may in the future be, assigned to the Farm Line.” Trial is set to proceed on February 3, 2026. Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc, No. 3:23-cv-01304 (M.D. La. Dec. 23, 2025)

California High-Speed Rail Authority Voluntarily Dismissed Challenge to Federal Funding Termination, Said It Would Seek Private Funding

On December 23, 2025, the California High-Speed Rail Authority voluntarily dismissed its action challenging the Federal Railroad Administration’s decision to terminate federal grant funding for the California high-speed rail program. In a press release issued the same day, the Authority announced that it had “initiated a process to bring private investors and developers to the Authority by summer 2026.” Two weeks earlier the federal district court for the Eastern District of California denied federal defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. The Authority’s complaint described the high-speed rail program as “a crucial part of California’s long-term strategic planning, not only to address critical transportation needs, but also greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, as well as to spur economic growth in California’s Central Valley and across the State.” California High-Speed Rail Authority v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02004 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025) 

Maryland Federal Court Denied Offshore Wind Developer’s Request for Preliminary Injunction Blocking Revocation of Federal Approval

The federal district court for the District of Maryland denied US Wind, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin an alleged federal decision to revoke the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for US Wind’s wind project off the Atlantic Coast of Maryland. The court found that US Wind failed to satisfy the tests for ripeness and final agency action and therefore did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:24-cv-03111 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2025)

Montana Federal Court Granted Fish and Wildlife Service Request for Voluntary Remand of Commercial Livestock Grazing Permits

The federal district court for the District of Montana granted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of Commercial Special Use Permits authorizing commercial livestock grazing in the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Montana. The plaintiffs who challenged the permits opposed remand. Their arguments included that the scope of remand was too narrow because the FWS did not propose to address key issues, including whether the FWS had ignored climate change. WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 9:24-cv-00066 (D. Mont. Dec. 15, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Enjoined FEMA’s Termination of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts held that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program was unlawful. The court called the BRIC program “the largest pre-disaster mitigation program offered through FEMA.” As a threshold matter, the court rejected the federal government’s arguments that the case was not ripe, that the plaintiff states lacked standing, and that sovereign immunity barred the claims. The court also rejected the federal government’s contentions that there had been no final agency action, that states’ claims addressed action committed to agency discretion by law, and that the states sought to compel agency action not required by law. On the merits, the court first found that the “summary termination (without the implementation of any replacement program through which states and local governments can obtain mitigation funding) undoubtedly qualifies as a substantial reduction of FEMA’s mitigation responsibilities” within the scope of the statutory provision prohibiting FEMA from substantially or significantly reducing its authorities, responsibilities, or functions. Second, the court found that the termination violated the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2024 by redirecting pre-disaster funds to post-disaster relief grant programs. Third, the court found that FEMA had not provided the states with the minimum level of funding mandated by statute. The court declined to address the states’ argument regarding the legality of the appointments of two FEMA officials. The court further found that the states met their burden of showing irreparable harm and established that the balance of hardships and public interest tilted in their favor. The court therefore granted the states’ request for a permanent injunction enjoining cancellation of the BRIC program “as it is currently constituted by an act of Congress.” The court wrote: “In sum, this is not a case about judicial encroachment on the discretionary authority of the Executive Branch. This is a case about unlawful Executive encroachment on the prerogative of Congress to appropriate funds for a specific and compelling purpose, and no more than that.” Washington v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1:25-cv-12006 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Transferred States’ Challenge to Revolution Wind Stop-Work Order to D.C. Court

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island granted a motion by federal defendants to transfer Rhode Island and Connecticut’s lawsuit challenging a federal stop-work order for the Revolution Wind offshore wind project to federal court in the District of Columbia, where a lawsuit brought by the project’s developer was pending in which the court had already issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the stop-work order. The Rhode Island federal court cited the similarities in the claims and requested relief in the two cases and the potential for inconsistent judgments. In the pending case in the District of Columbia, the project’s developer on January 1, 2026 filed a motion for leave to supplement its complaint to challenge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s December 22, 2025 order suspending work on the project. The court granted the motion on January 2 and set an expedited schedule for briefing of the developer’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Rhode Island v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00439 (D.R.I. Dec. 11, 2025), No. 1:25-cv-04328 (D.D.C.); Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-02999 (D.D.C. Jan. 1, 2026)

Montana Federal Court Vacated Approval for Project in Custer Gallatin National Forest but Upheld Climate Change Analysis 

Rejecting in part a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the federal district court for the District of Montana found that the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to comply with NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act in the review of a forest treatment project in the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The court vacated and remanded the environmental assessment and decision notice issued by the Forest Service. The court rejected, however, the plaintiffs’ argument under NEPA that the Forest Service failed to adequately address the cumulative impacts of climate change. The court noted that the Forest Service concluded—based on a project-level carbon analysis that was “tiered” to a 2022 programmatic analysis of carbon sequestration for the Custer Gallatin National Forest Land Management Plan—that the project would result in a short-term release of carbon but would over the long term increase carbon storage and reduce emissions. The court found that the Forest Service’s consideration of cumulative climate change effects was adequate “[g]iven the nature of this Project and the recency and scope of the tiered analysis.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 9:23-cv-00110 (D. Mont. Dec. 11, 2025)

California Federal Court Allowed Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint to Clarify Greenwashing Case Against Sugar Producer

The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted the sugar producer Florida Crystals Corporation’s motion to dismiss a greenwashing class action but granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to clarify her theory of liability. The court found that the first amended complaint’s allegations of deception were related to the defendants’ representations regarding the environmental benefits of particular products but that in opposing the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff focused on her reliance on representations regarding company-wide practices related to the environment, including climate change. The court therefore dismissed the first amended complaint on the grounds that it did not “adequately articulate” the plaintiff’s theory as to how the defendant’s representations were deceptive. The court did not address the defendant’s other grounds for dismissal and denied the motion to dismiss on those grounds without prejudice to the company’s ability to raise them after the plaintiff filed a new complaint. Merrell v. Florida Crystals Corp., No. 5:25-cv-02264 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Ordered Disclosure of Federal Advisory Committee Act Records for Climate Working Group

In a lawsuit challenging the legality of the establishment of the “Climate Working Group” that produced a report on which EPA relied for the proposed rescission of the 2009 Clean Air Act endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ordered federal defendants to produce Federal Advisory Committee Act records by December 22, 2025. The court also ordered the parties to file briefs on the deliberative process privilege by December 15 and to propose a schedule to address remaining issues. The parties’ proposed schedule included briefing in January 2026 on remedies with regard to the Climate Working Group and the U.S. Department of Energy. The parties also requested that the court schedule a hearing on the pending motion to dismiss claims against EPA and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Ruled that Federal Pause on Wind Energy Authorizations Was Unlawful

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that federal agencies’ orders pausing all wind energy authorizations (the “Wind Order”) were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The agencies issued the Wind Order to implement a memorandum issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025. As threshold matters, the court found that both the state plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) had constitutional standing and that their claims were within the zone of interests of the statutory provisions at issue, which set forth timelines and standards for wind energy permitting. On the merits, the court found that the Wind Order was a final agency action subject to judicial review and that it was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act imposing a nondiscretionary duty on agencies to pass upon matters presented to them and to complete any mandated adjudicatory hearings within a reasonable time. The court rejected the agencies’ argument that arbitrary-and-capricious review did not apply because they merely took action as directed by the President. The court vacated the Wind Order in its entirety. New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-11221 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025)

Virginia Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to NEPA Categorical Exclusions Adopted by Forest Service in 2020

The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to a 2020 U.S. Forest Service rule that established three categorical exclusions exempting certain commercial logging projects, road construction, and private uses of national forest lands from NEPA review. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were not ripe for review and that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not tie the categorical exclusions to any site-specific application. The plaintiffs’ allegations included assertions that the exclusions would allow significant climate impacts to occur without analysis. Clinch Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 2:21-cv-00003 (W.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2025)

New York Court Rejected Industry Challenge to State Hydrofluorocarbon Regulations

A New York trial court denied a petition challenging amendments to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) regulations addressing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The court described the amended regulations as including prohibitions on new HFC products and systems, prohibitions on bulk substances and containers, and a variance process. First, the court rejected industry petitioners’ claims that portions of regulations were arbitrary and capricious. Regarding provisions addressing bulk substances, the court found that the record demonstrated that the regulations aligned with federal law and implemented the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) scoping plan, and that DEC acknowledged the requirements were technology forcing and provided a variance process to address feasibility concerns. Regarding prohibitions on regulated substances with 20-year global warming potential (GWP20) greater than 10 or greater than 20 (depending on the application), the court found that the regulations were consistent with the scoping plan and that the record showed DEC considered comments, that the regulation did not require specific alternatives, and that a variance provision was included. Regarding the DEC’s decision to include regulations of “other residential HVAC” that the petitioners alleged did not align with federal and other states’ requirements, the court found that the record explained why EPA and other states might not have yet regulated the technologies and that the regulations were intended to address emerging technologies. Second, the court rejected contentions that DEC failed to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). The court found that DEC substantially complied with SAPA provisions requiring best estimates of the costs of the regulation, consideration of the regulation’s impact on small business, and identification of differences between federal standards and the adopted regulations. Third, the court ruled that DEC acted within its statutory jurisdiction under the CLCPA and other state environmental statutes. Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 903624-25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 22, 2025)

Iowa Court Granted Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Developer’s Request to Remand Permit Challenge to Iowa Utilities Commission

In a proceeding challenging the Iowa Utilities Commission’s (IUC’s) approval of a hazardous liquid pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC’s (Summit’s) pipeline to transport liquefied carbon dioxide through 29 Iowa counties, the Iowa District Court granted Summit’s motion to remand for further proceedings before the IUC. The court found that Summit had “good reason” for failing to present during the IUC proceedings regarding a ban enacted by South Dakota in 2025 (after IUC’s approval of the permit) on use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines enacted by South Dakota. The court also found that the materiality requirement for remand was satisfied due to the route modifications the South Dakota ban would require and their potential influence on IUC’s determination of whether to vest Summit with additional rights of eminent domain. Shelby County v. Iowa Utilities Commission, No. CVCV067849 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Dec. 19, 2025)

Massachusetts Land Court Said Abutting Landowner’s Allegations Regarding Flooding Concerns Established Standing for Challenge to Approval for Single-Family Home Conversion

The Massachusetts Land Court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a special permit and variances for conversion of a single-family home in Winthrop to a two-family home. The court found that the abutting property owner’s allegations regarding potential harms from water deflection and flooding were sufficient to demonstrate standing under the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act, which imposes burdens to affirmatively allege and demonstrate standing on parties challenging certain land use decisions. The plaintiff contended, among other things, that the zoning actions could cause property damage and threaten his personal safety by allowing construction of a two-family home without proper drainage and by directing flooding to the plaintiff’s property “without taking into consideration projections for future sea level rise and useful life of the structure.” Honan v. Baird, No. 23 MISC 000337 (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 8, 2025)

State Trial Court Held that North Dakota Carbon Storage Law Was Unconstitutional

A North Dakota District Court held that a North Dakota law regarding underground carbon dioxide storage provided for a physical taking of property constituting a taking without providing for just compensation. The law provided that if a carbon storage operator did not obtain consent of all persons who own a storage reservoir’s pore space, the North Dakota Industrial Commission could require that the nonconsenting owners be included in a storage facility, with title to the storage facility and the stored carbon transferring to the State upon completion of a carbon capture project. Although the North Dakota law provided for “compensation” to the nonconsenting owners, the court found that it “clearly does not provide ‘just compensation’ as defined in North Dakota.” Northwest Landowners Association v. State, No. 05-2023-CV-00065 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Dec. 2, 2025)

U.S. NEW CASES AND OTHER FILINGS

Lawsuit Challenged FERC Reauthorization of Rio Grande LNG Export Terminal

Two environmental organizations and the City of Port Isabel filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorizations of the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas, and the associated Rio Bravo pipeline project. The petitioners’ primary challenge was to FERC’s order reaffirming its authorization of the projects under the Natural Gas Act on remand from the D.C. Circuit’s 2024 decision in City of Port Isabel v. FERC, in which the court found that FERC failed to adequately analyze climate change and environmental justice impacts. The petition for review challenging the order on remand did not set forth specific arguments, but before FERC the petitioners had argued, among other things, that FERC should have analyzed a potential carbon capture and sequestration system as a connected action and that the projects were contrary to the public interest because they would not provide public benefits that could outweigh health impacts and other harms. South Texas Environmental Justice Network v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 25-1284 (D.C. Cir., filed Dec. 15, 2025)

United States Challenged California Cities’ Natural Gas Bans

The United States filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging two California cities’ ordinances establishing building electrification requirements and banning natural gas infrastructure in certain new construction. The complaint alleged that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted the ordinances adopted by the City of Morgan Hill and City of Petaluma. The U.S. asked the court to declare that the ordinances are preempted and to permanently enjoin enforcement of the laws. United States v. City of Morgan Hill, No. 5:26-cv-00056 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 5, 2026)

Developers of Virginia and New York Offshore Wind Projects Challenged Federal Stop-Work Order

The public utility developing the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project and a subsidiary that leases the offshore commercial lease area for the project filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) December 22, 2025 order directing the utility to immediately stop work on the project. The plaintiffs alleged that the BOEM order—which cited “national security threats” as the rationale for the stop-work order—was inconsistent with BOEM’s regulations, with lease terms, with construction and operations plan approvals, and with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The plaintiffs also asserted that the order was arbitrary and capricious, contending that the national security rationale was “not plausible.” They also asserted that the order violated OCSLA, that the order deprived the utility of a property interest without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and that the order violated the Constitution’s Property Clause. The plaintiffs alleged that the order was causing immediate and irreparable harm, including because the wind project was critical to Virginia’s legislative clean energy directive and the utility’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions. Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 2:25-cv-00830 (E.D. Va., filed Dec. 23, 2025)

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the developers of Empire Wind Project offshore Brooklyn filed a lawsuit challenging BOEM’s December 22, 2025 suspension of the Empire Wind Project, which is located on the outer continental shelf approximately 14 miles offshore New York. The developers allege the suspension order is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion; that BOEM acted without observing procedure required by law; and that the order contrary to OCSLA. In addition, the developers asserted that the suspension order violated their right under the Fifth Amendment to due process. Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00004 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 2, 2026)

Sunrise Wind LLC, the developer of an offshore wind project approximately 30 miles east of Long Island, also filed a lawsuit challenging BOEM’s suspension order. The complaint alleged that the order posed an immediate threat to energy, environmental, and public health benefits the project would generate, including achievement of the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. Sunrise Wind LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00028 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 6, 2026) 

Environmental Groups Challenged TVA Approval of Illinois Coal Mine Expansion

Sierra Club and Prairie Rivers Network filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Illinois challenging the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) approval of the expansion of a coal mine in southern Illinois. The complaint alleged that TVA’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was predicated on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of a 2002 lease that granted rights to mine TVA coal reserves and also because the decision “contradicts TVA’s own expressed goals related to carbon emissions and statutory obligations related to environmental protection.” The plaintiffs also asserted that TVA violated the National Environmental Policy Act both because the environmental review was grounded in the allegedly erroneous construction of the lease as requiring TVA to grant the mining authorization and because the environmental review did not consider reasonably foreseeable impacts of the mining company’s continued violations of environmental law. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that TVA did not adequately consider the impacts of potential divestment of TVA mineral rights in southern Illinois, including whether sale of the coal reserves to be burned was consistent with TVA’s decarbonization and environmental protection goals. Sierra Club v. Moul, No. 3:25-cv-02202 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2025)

Grant Recipient Challenged Termination of Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program

An organization that received an approximately $20 million grant under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s purported termination of the entire grant program and refusal to disburse awarded grants. The grant awarded to the plaintiff was for acquisition of land for “a green campus for the community of Norcross”; for offering emergency and clean energy job training; and for services such as air, water, and energy assessment and remediation. The complaint asserted that the federal defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the defendants’ actions exceeded their authority, were contrary to law, and failed to observe required procedures in violation of the APA. The plaintiffs also asserted separate claims that the defendants’ actions were ultra vires and violated separation of powers. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an injunction preventing the defendants from terminating the grant program and from impeding or terminating the plaintiff’s access to awarded funds. Lucky Shoals Community Association, Inc. v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-07221 (N.D. Ga., filed Dec. 17, 2025)

Lawsuits Challenged Trump Administration Suspension of Funding for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program

Two lawsuits filed in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington challenged U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration actions freezing funds appropriated for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program established by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The IIJA appropriated $2.5 billion to “support changes in the transportation sector that help achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and improve the mobility of passenger and commercial vehicles that employ electric, hydrogen fuel cell, propane, and natural gas fueling technologies across the United States.” One lawsuit was filed by California, 14 other states, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and the District of Columbia (the states). The other was filed by two environmental organizations (Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council) and Climate Solutions, which the complaint described as “a Northwest-based clean energy economy nonprofit.” The states’ lawsuit also challenged DOT and FHWA actions suspending the Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator Program, which also was funded under the IIJA. The states alleged that the defendants “never publicly explained” their actions suspending the programs, which the complaint said had been held in limbo since early in the Trump administration. The states alleged that the failure to obligate funding under the programs constituted an impoundment that violated the separation of powers by contravening constitutional provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Presentment Clause. The states also asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The states’ complaint included allegations regarding the importance of the funding for the plaintiffs’ climate goals. The nonprofits’ complaint asserted violations of the APA, violation of separation of powers, violation of the Take Care Clause, and ultra vires action. California v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02574 (W.D. Wash., filed Dec. 16, 2025); Climate Solutions v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02578 (W.D. Wash., filed Dec. 16, 2025)

Lawsuit Challenged Reissued Coastal Use Permit for LNG Terminal 

Three environmental organizations challenged the reissuance by the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy’s Office of Coastal Management (OCM) of a Coastal Use Permit for construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the Calcasieu Ship Channel in Cameron Parish. A Louisiana trial court vacated the previously issued Coastal Use Permit in October 2025, finding that OCM violated its regulations, the Louisiana Constitution, and the coastal zone management plan by failing to adequately consider environmental and climate change impacts. In November 2025, OCM published a revised basis of decision and reissued the permit. The organizations alleged that OCM failed to provide notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the permit. The organizations also alleged that the revised basis of decision did not correct the errors identified by the court, including by failing to consider the project’s cumulative climate change impacts. Sierra Club v. Louisiana Department of Conservation & Energy, No. C-1021318 (La. Dist. Ct., filed Dec. 18, 2025)