Climate Litigation Updates (March 23, 2026)

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Supreme Court Granted Certiorari in Boulder’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies

On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted three fossil fuel companies’ petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion allowing the County Commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder (together, Boulder) to proceed with their state-law claims that the companies are liable for climate change-related injuries suffered by Boulder. Boulder’s suit, filed in 2018, seeks damages and other relief and asserts causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment. Boulder alleges that the companies “knowingly caused and contributed to the alteration of the climate by producing, promoting, refining, marketing and selling fossil fuels at levels that have caused and continue to cause climate change, while concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers associated with fossil fuels’ intended use.” In their petition for writ of certiorari, the companies—Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation—asked the Supreme Court to consider the question of “[w]hether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” In its order granting certiorari, the Court asked the parties to brief both this question and also the additional issue of whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear the case. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2026)

Since the Court’s granting of certiorari, parties and courts in some of the other pending climate cases against fossil fuel companies have responded to this development:

• In the State of Hawai‘i’s lawsuit, the defendants asked the Hawai‘i trial court to continue the stay of proceedings that was in place due to the United States’ pending lawsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin Hawai‘i’s lawsuit. The defendants argued that it “will promote judicial economy and the interests of justice to continue to pause proceedings here to permit the Supreme Court to provide potentially dispositive guidance regarding a core threshold issue in this case.” The defendants also argued continuing the stay was warranted due to defendant Chevron’s filing of a motion to enforce a 2002 judgment in a case that resolved claims brought by the State of Hawai‘i arising from alleged deceptive manufacture, marketing, and sale of petroleum products. The defendants argued that the resolution of Chevron’s motion could dispose of this case as to Chevron and that other defendants in this case also intend to file similar motions in the other case. In addition, the defendants argue that the court should continue the stay until the United States’ lawsuit in federal court is resolved. State of Hawai‘i v. BP p.l.c., No. 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct.)
• In the case brought by the New Jersey Attorney General and two other New Jersey officials, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued an order holding the plaintiffs’ appeal of the February 2025 dismissal of the case in abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Boulder case. The court also rescinded a February 20, 2026 invitation to submit supplemental briefs addressing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. Oral argument previously had been scheduled for May 12, 2026. Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., A-001641-24T2 (N.J. App. Div.)
• In the cases brought by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe and the Makah Indian Tribe, the fossil fuel industry defendants on February 25, 2026 requested that the Washington Superior Court stay all proceedings. The court proceeded with a hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases on February 27. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 23-2-25215-2 (Wash. Super. Ct.)
• In the appeals by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County of the trial courts’ dismissals of their cases, the Maryland Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ motion to stay its consideration of the appeals. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., No. 11 (Md. Mar. 19, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

North Carolina Trial Court Said Town of Carrboro’s Climate Case Against Duke Energy Raised Nonjusticiable Political Questions

A North Carolina Superior Court dismissed the Town of Carrboro’s climate lawsuit against the public utility company Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy). The court described Carrboro’s suit as alleging that Duke Energy “misled the American public for decades about the effects of fossil fuel consumption on the environment” and that “as a result, the public transition to alternative forms of energy was delayed,” which materially contributed to climate change harms suffered by the Town. The court concluded that Carrboro had standing to bring the action but found that the Town’s claims were nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Supreme Court’s three-factor test for the political question doctrine. First, the court found that energy policy was “textually committed” to branches of government other than the judiciary and that issues regarding fossil fuel-related emissions were delegated to the Utilities Commission and to the Department of Environmental Quality. Second, the court found courts “lack the capacity to resolve … through traditional methods of judicial adjudication” the “multitude of unanswerable questions raised by Carrboro’s claims and theory of recovery,” including questions regarding “the unknowable issue of precisely how much influence Duke Energy’s alleged acts of deception had on energy choices made by individual members of the American public.” The court also found that Carrboro “ignores the impacts of fossil fuel-related emissions by billions of persons in other countries throughout the world.” The court wrote that “[t]he very nature of carbon emissions existing as gases that are diffused throughout the atmosphere across the globe makes any attempt to attribute a specific source of emissions to a specific climate change-related impact a futile endeavor.” The court also found persuasive the application of the political question doctrine in three climate cases in other jurisdictions: Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., California v. General Motors Corp., and City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co. Although the court dismissed the case under the political question doctrine, the court also concluded that it was likely that “some portion” of Carrboro’s claims were preempted by federal law. Town of Carrboro v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 24CV003385-670 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 12, 2026)

Federal Court Declared Texas Statute’s Prohibitions on State Business with Companies that “Boycott” Fossil Fuel Companies Unconstitutional

The federal district court for the Western District of Texas enjoined enforcement of a Texas law enacted in 2021 (Senate Bill 13 (SB 13)) that prohibited State of Texas entities from investing in or contracting with companies that “boycott” fossil fuel-based energy companies. As a threshold matter, the court ruled that the organization that challenged the law, American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), satisfied the test for associational standing for claims against the divestment provision of SB 13 based on the standing of two ASBC members that had been blacklisted. The court found that the interests ASBC sought to protect in the lawsuit were “‘germane’ to ASBC’s mission of encouraging sustainable investing and business practices” and that ASBC members did not need to participate in the suit given that ASBC sought only prospective and injunctive relief, as opposed to individualized damages. The court also concluded that ASBC had standing for a facial First Amendment challenge to SB 13’s contracting provision. On the merits, the court ruled that SB 13 violated the First Amendment because it was “facially overbroad” since its provisions affected “a broad range of protected activities,” including “speaking about the risks posed by fossil fuels, advocating against reliance on fossil fuels, and associating with like-minded organizations.” The court further concluded that SB 13 was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “because it fails to provide persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited and does not provide explicit standards for determining compliance with the law.” The defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay pending appeal. American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar, No. 1:24-cv-01010 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2026)

Vanguard Group and State Plaintiffs Settled Antitrust Case Challenging Alleged Use of Coal Holdings to Reduce Coal Output; BlackRock and State Street Remain as Defendants

State plaintiffs and The Vanguard Group, Inc. (Vanguard) reached a settlement in the states’ lawsuit alleging that Vanguard and two other institutional investors violated antitrust laws by collectively using their shareholdings in domestic coal producers to reduce coal output. Vanguard, which expressly denied that it had engaged in any unlawful act, agreed to pay $29.5 million into an escrow account established by the plaintiff states. Vanguard also agreed to abide by “Passivity Commitments” for five years regarding its stewardship of “U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds,” which were defined as Vanguard-advised exchange-traded funds, collective investment trusts, and mutual funds domiciled in the U.S. The settlement agreement provided that “Vanguard Investment Stewardship, or any group that may succeed it by taking over its responsibilities for stewardship of U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds, shall pursue engagement activities with portfolio companies and cast shareholder votes relating to U.S. Equity Investments made by U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds solely to further the financial interests of investors in those funds,” which is defined as seeking “the best long-term investment returns for investors in each fund.” The settlement agreement set forth specific obligations, including that Vanguard “will not advocate to any portfolio company that it take any particular course of conduct to reduce carbon emissions” and that Vanguard will withdraw from the Principles for Responsible Investment and will not participate in any organization that advocates for setting specific output or emissions targets or that requires members to make commitments to achieve climate-focused objectives. The specific commitments also included obligations not explicitly related to climate or ESG such as requiring that Vanguard “will not dispose or threaten to dispose of securities of portfolio companies as a condition or inducement of specific action or nonaction by such company.” The settlement agreement also provided that Vanguard would use commercially reasonable efforts to offer proxy voting choice to investors and encourage investors to participate. In addition, Vanguard agreed to provide certain discovery materials. Texas v. BlackRock, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026)

Texas Federal Court Awarded $4.6 Million in Attorney’s Fees to Plaintiff Who Challenged Influence of ESG Interests in American Airlines Employee Retirement Plans

The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas awarded approximately $4.6 million in attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who prevailed on a claim that American Airlines, Inc. and the American Airlines Employee Benefits Committee (collectively American) had breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by allowing corporate interests in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives and their investment manager’s ESG interests to influence their management of employee retirement plans. The court found that American had “sufficient culpability to warrant granting attorney’s fees” even though the court did not award damages. The court also found that other factors favored awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, including that American had the ability to pay, that an attorney’s fee award would provide an incentive to American and other companies “to better adhere to the duty of loyalty,” and that “the case grappled with a significant and novel issue of whether ERISA permits asset managers to invest Plan assets with ESG-related goals rather than the exclusive financial interests of the Plan participants.” The court also denied American’s motion for reconsideration of the final judgment but clarified multiple points of the injunction. Spence v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00552 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2026)

D.C. Federal Court Vacated EIS for Wyoming Oil and Gas Project for Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives

The federal district court in the District of Columbia vacated the 2020 environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD) for the Converse County Oil and Gas Project in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, finding that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to conduct an adequate analysis of reasonable alternatives. In particular, the court found that BLM violated its obligation under NEPA to “rigorously evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives” by eliminating a greenhouse gas reduction alternative and an alternative that reduced the pace of oil and gas development. The court found that vacatur was warranted because BLM’s errors “were the type that prompts ‘substantial doubt’ that the agency chose correctly” and because the federal defendants and the intervenors failed to show that vacatur of the EIS and ROD would be so disruptive as to justify departing from the normal remedy of vacatur. The court also considered the environmental harm from keeping the EIS in place, noting that the project was “already emitting and will continue to emit significant levels of greenhouse gases that will contribute to climate change and impart other significant environmental harm, impacting human health, sensitive natural resources, landscapes, and wildlife.” The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint, finding that the new claims related to 2025 environmental assessments, categorical exclusions, and applications for permits to drill that were “superficially similar” to the 2020 actions challenged in this case but rested on separate procedures and documents and constituted new, final agency actions. The court also found that allowing the plaintiffs to supplement the complaint would prejudice the defendants and intervenors. Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:22-cv-02696 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2026)

Department of Agriculture Agreed to Provide Climate Information to Plaintiffs to Resolve Litigation that Challenged the Removal of Data from Agency Websites

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York so-ordered a stipulation and order of settlement and dismissal in a lawsuit brought in February 2025 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the removal of climate change-related information from the USDA website after President Trump’s inauguration. In May 2025, the parties notified the court that USDA would restore the content. In the February 2026 stipulation setting forth the terms of the dismissal of the case, USDA agreed to provide the plaintiffs with certain data sets used to generate the Forest Service Climate Risk Viewer and to provide certain records created since the publication in April 2023 of an initial inventory of mature and old-growth forests on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order 14072, “Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies.” The records USDA must provide include “records of continued work on the definitions of mature and old-growth forests, the Forest Inventory Growth Stage System methodology, the special resolution of the inventory, and the data enabling or supporting increased accuracy or a finer spatial resolution.” USDA also agreed to maintain public access to the Climate Risk Viewer until the release of records is completed. Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:25-cv-01529 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2026)

After Trump Administration Withdrawal from Columbia River System MOU, Oregon Federal Court Granted Preliminary Injunction Requiring Government to Increase Spill Levels; Failure to Consider Climate Change Cited

The federal district court for the District of Oregon granted motions for preliminary injunction filed by National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and by the State of Oregon seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to increase spill levels and implement other measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. NWF and Oregon filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a 2023 memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. In its decision on the motion, the court rejected the federal defendants’ arguments that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and lacked authority to enter an injunction. In considering the factors for a preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the 2020 biological opinion (BiOp) for the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) under the Endangered Species Act and the related record of decision under the National Environmental Policy Act failed for at least four reasons, including because the BiOp did not properly account for climate change in its analysis of whether FCRPS operation would jeopardize continued existence of salmonids. The court found that the federal defendants’ contention that the BiOp only needed to consider harms caused by the proposed action was “missing the crux” of the plaintiffs’ argument, which was that harm caused by the proposed action “is significantly greater when climate change is considered.” The court wrote that if FRCPS operation “kills more salmonids because they are weakened by the effects of climate change, or if the amount of salmonids killed by FCRPS operations is more of a threat to the sustainability of the species because they are dying in greater numbers due to climate change, that is the reality in which [the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)] must assess the effects of the Proposed Action.” The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that NMFS did not properly assess the proposed action’s effects with climate change. The court also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief due to the vulnerability of salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The court further found that the balance of the equities and the public interest weighed heavily in favor of preliminary relief, citing the threats to the species and harms to the tribes of the Columbia River Basin. The court noted that it was not granting certain components of the plaintiff’s requested injunction, which would ameliorate countervailing harms identified by the defendants. The court denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:01-cv-640 (D. Or. Feb. 25, 2026)

California Federal Court Dismissed Climate Washing Cases Regarding Carbon Neutrality Claims for Apple Watches and Vape Products

The federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims that Apple Inc. made false and misleading representations that its corporate global emissions since 2020 and certain Apple Watches were carbon neutral. The plaintiffs alleged that these representations relied on carbon credits that were insufficient to offset emissions to render Apple’s corporate emissions or its Apple Watches carbon neutral. The plaintiffs also alleged that Apple failed to retire sufficient carbon credits to fully offset Apple Watches’ emissions in 2024. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that Apple’s claims of carbon neutrality were false. The court found that the plaintiffs offered only “conclusory allegations” that Apple retired an insufficient number of credits and that the plaintiffs did not support their allegations that the credits purchased by Apple inflated or miscalculated the amount of carbon offset with allegations that they used a validated and verified methodology. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 21 days, but they elected not to amend and filed a notice requesting that the court enter final judgment. Dib v. Apple Inc., No. 25-cv-02043 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026).

The federal district court for the Northern District of California also dismissed climate washing claims by consumers who purchased “Vuse” brand vaping products marketed as “carbon neutral.” The consumers challenged the validity of the third party-verified carbon offset credits on which the carbon neutrality claim relied. The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs lacked standing, finding that the consumers alleged a “pocketbook injury” caused by their purchase of vape products at a premium price based on the defendants’ carbon neutral marketing. The court found, however, that the plaintiffs failed to state claims under California’s consumer protection laws because they did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would adopt the plaintiffs’ specific interpretation of carbon neutrality requiring no additional carbon emissions to the atmosphere and an “independent, primary-source verification of the carbon-offset project amounts.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to allege that defendants lacked a “reasonable basis” for the carbon neutrality claims and that the consumers’ complaint “fails to provide a sufficient factual basis to bridge the gap between a technical disagreement over a carbon-offset projects and a plausible claim of consumer deception.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and that they abandoned their claims of breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The court also concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a United Kingdom-based investment holding company that was an indirect parent company of two of the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that the subsidiaries were alter egos of the UK-based company and that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that jurisdictional discovery was necessary. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed another defendant from the case at the end of January 2026. The court granted the consumers leave to amend their complaint as to claims the California consumer protection law and express warranty claims, but on March 5 the plaintiffs gave notice that they did not intend to file an amended complaint and asked the court to enter final judgment. On March 10, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 3:25-cv-04521 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026)

Maine Federal Court Denied Community Solar Developers’ Request that It Block Maine Law’s Imposition of Project Charge for Participation in Net Energy Billing

The federal district court for the District of Maine denied community solar project sponsors’ challenge to a Maine law that imposed a charge on community solar developers participating in Maine’s Net Energy Billing (NEB) Program. The plaintiffs contended that the new charge constituted an unconstitutional per se taking of private property and alleged that it would “upend Maine’s progress toward achieving its sustainability goals.” The court found that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the project charge was an unconstitutional taking. The court concluded that the charge was neither an impermissible monetary exaction under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine nor a governmental directive of payments from a specific and identifiable fund of money. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs could not sustain a per se takings claim because their participation in the NEB Program was voluntary. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm because they would be able to recover any monetary damages resulting from the charge. In addition, the court found that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed against a preliminary injunction. Gray Yarmouth Road Solar LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, No. 1:25-cv-00952 (D. Me. Feb. 17, 2026) 

Pennsylvania Gas Producer and News Publication Reached Settlement in Gas Producer’s Defamation Action

On September 23, 2025, CNX Resources Corporation (CNX), a Pennsylvania natural gas producer, filed a defamation lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Capital & Main, which the complaint alleged was “a California-based environmental media outlet that is funded by renewable energy interests.” The complaint alleged that Capital & Main published a “hit piece” about CNX’s “Radical Transparency” program, which the complaint describes as involving monitoring and real-time reporting on air quality, waste, and water quality at certain gas well pads. The complaint alleged that the article “serves as the mouthpiece for certain … climate and renewable energy activists to make false and defamatory statements regarding CNX” and a report on the Radical Transparency program. The complaint alleged that “[w]hile Capital & Main and the renewable energy activists quoted in the Article may have the right to criticize the methodology of the Report or the conclusions drawn in the Report, the Article became legally actionable when it published purportedly fact-based statements accusing CNX of such serious business misconduct as alleged fabrication of data and alleged securities market manipulation in connection with the release of the Report.” CNX sought damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, such other relief as the court deemed appropriate. On February 12, 2026, the parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit after they agreed to a settlement. The stipulation did not report on the terms of the settlement, but CNX announced the settlement on its “Positive Energy Hub” site, stating that Capital & Main had added the following editor’s note to the article: “Capital & Main did not state, and did not intend to imply, that CNX fabricated any reported data in its Radical Transparency program. Further, Capital & Main did not state, and did not intend to imply, that CNX engaged in manipulation of the stock market or any improper attempts to influence its ratings or stock values. Capital & Main has no facts or basis to believe that any fabrication of data or market manipulation occurred.” CNX Resources Corp. v. Capital & Main, No. 2:25-cv-01471 (W.D. Pa., filed Sep. 23, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Entered Judgment Declaring that Secretary of Energy’s Climate Working Group Was Subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act 

On January 23, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists’ motion to compel disclosure of the names of federal government employees who reviewed and provided comments on the report prepared by the Climate Working Group convened by the Secretary of Energy to “provide clarity and balance” regarding climate science. Two days earlier, the court granted in part the organizations’ request to compel disclosure of records withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege under Freedom of Information Act Exemption 5. On January 30, the court entered a judgment declaring that the Climate Working Group was not exempt from Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements; declaring that the court was satisfied that the federal government had remedied the informational injury by disclosing records; and dismissing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a defendant because there was “no persuasive evidence of conduct violative of the FACA on the part of any entity outside of the Department of Energy and Secretary Wright.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Jan. 23 and 30, 2026)

New Hampshire Federal Court Enjoined State’s Termination of Its Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

The federal district court for the District of New Hampshire granted a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Commissioners of the New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services from ceasing implementation or enforcement of the State of New Hampshire’s vehicle inspection and maintenance program unless the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants final approval of a revised Clean Air Act state implementation plan (SIP) removing the program. The State enacted a law abolishing the program in June 2025, and the State subsequently took steps to wind down the program effective January 31, 2026. The court found that the parent company of the vendor that contracted with the State to provide the services and equipment for inspections showed a substantial likelihood of standing. The court further found that the company was likely to succeed on the merits of its Clean Air Act claim that the Commissioners were “in violation of” the SIP and that the company would likely succeed in showing it complied with the Clean Air Act’s notice requirements for citizen suits. In addition, the court found that the company demonstrated that in the absence of a preliminary injunction it would suffer substantial injuries that could not remedied by money damages at the end of the case. The court also concluded that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction. On February 10, the Commissioners filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal. The court denied the motion to stay on February 25, 2026. Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc. v. NH Department of Safety, Commissioner, No. 1:25-cv-00508 (D.N.H. Jan. 27, 2026)

California Federal Court Barred Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Desert Tortoise Habitat

The federal district court for the Northern District of California issued a decision on the remedy to address violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act in connection with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) designation of a route network for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in the West Mojave Desert. The violations identified in the court’s October 2024 ruling included that BLM failed to analyze the greenhouse gas impacts among alternatives. The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for partial vacatur of the route network, finding that closure of desert tortoise critical habitat to OHVs was appropriate. The court remanded and vacated or partially vacated the record of decision, biological opinion, and incidental take statement for further proceedings. Center for Biological Diversity v. Culver, No. 21-cv-07171 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2026)

Federal Government Agreed to Make Determination Regarding Whether Smalltail Shark Is Endangered or Threatened

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed to a settlement resolving a lawsuit to compel NMFS to make a 12-month finding on whether listing of the smalltail shark as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. CBD filed the lawsuit—in which CBD alleged that the species is threatened by climate change, overfishing, and other factors— in February 2025, more than two years after it submitted a listing petition and almost two years after NMFS issued a 90-day finding that listing “may be warranted.” In the settlement agreement, NMFS agreed to submit to the Office of the Federal Register by August 12, 2026 a 12-month finding as to whether listing is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by other pending proposals. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 8:25-cv-00661 (D. Md. Jan. 30, 2026)

Endangered Species Act Lawsuit Withdrawn After Fish and Wildlife Service Acted on Listing Petition for Rare Flower

Center for Biological Diversity voluntarily withdrew an Endangered Species Act lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) after FWS published the required 90-day finding in response to CBD’s April 2024 petition to list the gray cat’s eye as threatened or endangered. FWS published a finding on January 26, 2026 in which it announced that CBD’s petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. In its complaint, CBD alleged that the flower, which is found only on dunes along the Columbia River in central Washington, faces threats that include climate change-related disruption to groundwater regimes. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:25-cv-00620 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2026)

D.C. Federal Court Declined to Compel New Environmental Review for Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure

The federal district court for the District of Columbia declined to compel the Secretary of the Interior and two other federal officials to update environmental assessments for the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure. The court concluded that although Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) had standing to bring the suit, the organization did not establish a discrete and mandatory duty that the court could order the defendants to perform. The court also found that the lawsuit presented an impermissible programmatic challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. CBD’s 2024 lawsuit alleged that the Interior Department had “under-studied” environmental concerns associated with “delinquent and decommissioned-in-place infrastructure,” including “substantial risks to the Gulf, including oil spills, methane leaks, and the leaching of toxic chemicals.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:24-cv-02014 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2026)

California Federal Court Again Dismissed U.S. Avocado Growers Claims Alleging Mexican Avocado Suppliers Violated Law by Engaging in Unsustainable Sourcing Practices

The federal district court for the Central District of California again dismissed U.S. avocado growers’ claims against distributors and suppliers of Mexico-grown avocados in which the U.S. growers alleged that the defendants misrepresented the sustainability of their avocados. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants source their avocados from recently deforested land, which exacerbates water scarcity, contributes to climate change, and leads to habitat and biodiversity loss. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after the court dismissed their claims in September 2025. In its decision granting the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court again concluded that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege standing for a California False Advertising Law or fraud-based Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim because they did not allege they themselves relied on the alleged misrepresentations regarding sustainability and the plaintiffs made only generalized assertions of third-party consumer reliance. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful business practices and misrepresentation-based unfair business practices also failed. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead a UCL violation based on “unfair, anticompetitive conduct” in the amended complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs “have only shown injury to themselves as competitors, but not injury to competition,” with their allegations that the defendants’ sourcing practices were “exploitative” and anticompetitive. In addition, the court again dismissed the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The court granted leave to amend their UCL claim based on alleged anticompetitive conduct but not their misrepresentation-based claims. Kachuck Enterprises v. Mission Produce, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01523 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026)

North Dakota Court Entered Judgment Against Greenpeace Organizations for $345 Million in Case Brought by Dakota Access Pipeline Developers and Owner

A North Dakota District Court entered a final judgment ordering Greenpeace International (GPI), Greenpeace, Inc., and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. to pay more than $345 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Greenpeace organizations were found to be liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, and tortious interference with business, and aiding and abetting in connection with protests of the pipeline. The court also directed that the developers and owner shall recover 11% interest starting from March 19, 2025 (the date of the jury verdict) until the judgment is paid. In a statement, the Greenpeace organizations announced they would seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. A petition for a supervisory writ is currently pending in the North Dakota Supreme Court in which the developers and owner ask the Supreme Court to direct the district court to block GPI from proceeding with an action against them in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Feb. 27, 2026)

Washington Voluntarily Dismissed Challenge to Termination of Climate Resilience Funding

On January 20, 2026, the State of Washington voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) termination of two awards of funding that the State alleged it was “relying on to help communities disproportionately exposed to the adverse effects of climate change become more resilient.” The federal district court for the Western District of Washington had granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction barring termination of the awards in October 2025. A spokesperson for the Washington State Attorney General’s Office told Law360that the State “decided to reevaluate this case in light of the ever-changing legal landscape surrounding funding terminations” and that the State continued to believe the termination of the awards was unlawful and would challenge such unlawful actions “in all available forums.” On January 26, the defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal of the preliminary injunction and requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate the district court’s decision granting the injunction. The defendants said that the State had authorized them to represent that the State consented to dismissal and vacatur. The court granted the motion on January 28. Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 2:25-cv-01507 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 20, 2026)

Virginia Withdrew Appeal of Order Finding State’s Withdrawal from RGGI Unlawful

On March 5, 2026, Southern Environmental Law Center announced that the Virginia Court of Appeals had acknowledged the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and its director’s withdrawal of their appeal of a November 2024 trial court decision holding that the defendants’ regulatory action removing Virginia from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was unlawful. SELC’s press release stated that returning Virginia to RGGI had been a priority for Governor Abigail Spanberger and Attorney General Jay Jones, both of whom took office in January 2026, and that recently enacted budget legislation required reentry to the program. Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board v. Association of Energy Conservation Professionals, No. 0234-25-3 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2026)

After Reaching Agreement to Put Power Plant on Path to New Air Permit, Operator Withdraws Appeal of Decision that Said New York Climate Law Authorized Denial of Permit

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), three environmental organizations, and the operator of a natural gas-fired power plant used for behind-the-meter cryptocurrency mining stipulated to the dismissal of the power plant operator’s appeal of a trial court decision that vacated DEC’s denial of an application to renew the facility’s air permit. The operator appealed the trial court’s judgment to the extent the court concluded DEC had authority under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) to deny the permit. The operator also challenged other aspects of the trial court’s decision, including its finding that DEC rationally determined that the permit renewal was inconsistent with the CLCPA’s greenhouse gas reduction mandates and its interpretations of the analysis required by the CLCPA. The operator agreed to withdraw its appeal after reaching an agreement with DEC pursuant to which the operator would submit a supplement to its permit renewal application that would include greenhouse gas emissions limits and reporting requirements as new permit conditions. The agreement stated that DEC had determined that the required emissions limits would establish the facility’s consistency with the CLCPA’s statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits. The agreement set forth the framework for the review of the permit. Greenidge Generation LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. CA 25-00153 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 11, 2026)

D.C. Superior Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Greenwashing Suit Concerning Bottled Water Products

The District of Columbia Superior Court denied Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Core Nutrition, LLC’s motion to dismiss Plastic Pollution Coalition’s (PPC’s) lawsuit claiming that the companies falsely and deceptively marketed Core bottled water products as sustainable and “BPA free.” PPC alleged that the defendants made sustainability representations that included representations related to climate benefits, including that the use of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) “saves large amounts of energy and greenhouse gas emissions when compared to virgin or vPET.” PPC alleged that the sustainability representations were misleading, including because the process of making recycled plastic is “expensive and requires large amount of energy, water, equipment, and infrastructure,” only a “very small portion” of plastic material is actually recycled, and plastics have carbon-intensive and water-intensive life cycles. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the complaint failed to state a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act and that the recycling claims were barred by the First Amendment. On February 18, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings because they were discussing potential resolution of the matter. Plastic Pollution Coalition v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., No. 2025-CAB-003321 (D.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2025) 

Illinois High Court Upheld Authorization for Transmission Line to Carry Wind Energy

Reversing an intermediate appellate court, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) granted to Grain Belt Express, LLC (GBX) for construction and operation of a high-voltage direct current transmission line to carry electricity generated by wind generating facilities in Kansas. The Supreme Court held that the Public Utilities Act did not require a showing of present capability “of financing the proposed construction without significant adverse financial consequences for the utility or its customers” as a condition precedent to the issuance of a CPCN. The Supreme Court noted that the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act enacted in 2021 amended the Public Utilities Act to authorize a “qualifying direct current applicant” to apply for a CPCN without owning any physical plant, equipment, or property. The Supreme Court found that the Illinois Commerce Commission’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Act as not requiring demonstration of “a current and present ability to finance” a project was consistent with the plain and unambiguous language of the statute and also was aligned with “the legislature’s express commitment to reduce the state’s dependency on fossil fuels and move to renewable energies.” In addition, the Supreme Court found that GBX presented substantial evidence that supported the ICC’s determination that GBX was capable of financing the project without significant adverse financial consequences. Concerned Citizens & Property Owners v. Illinois Commerce Commission, Nos. 131026, 131032 (Ill. Jan. 23, 2026)

Washington Court of Appeals Said Site-Specific Assessment of Timber Sale’s Climate Impacts Was Not Required

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed a Washington Superior Court order requiring the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to assess the site-specific climate impacts of the proposed harvesting of 100 acres of forest land held in trust by the State. The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners did not meet their burden to show that DNR’s reliance on a “landscape level” analysis of climate change impacts and carbon emissions of the timber harvest was clearly erroneous. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners did not meet their burden to show that DNR erred by relying on a 2019 final environmental impact statement rather than on a 2020 carbon inventory or a 2019 letter that developed a modified and expanded life-cycle assessment of forest sector emissions and sequestration from plots in Washington, Oregon, and California. The court indicated that DNR considered those studies but found them to be distinguishable. The Court of Appeals also rejected the petitioner’s contentions that DNR failed to take a hard look at greenhouse gas emissions, the loss of carbon sequestration capacity, or increased vulnerability to climate change. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that DNR was required to conduct an alternatives analysis under the State Environmental Policy Act because the timber sale “presents a situation involving a choice between uses,” e.g., cutting down trees versus setting aside mature forest components as carbon reserves. Center for Sustainable Economy v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, No. 86667-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2026) 

In Challenge to Authorization for Natural Gas Facility, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Said It Would Not Create Environmental Review Regime by “Judicial Fiat” 

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s opinion and order concluding that a natural gas “reliability station” in the Township of Marple would not pose an unusual safety risk, produce unreasonable noise levels, include air pollution sources with emissions exceeding federal and state standards, or violate any climate standards under the Commission’s jurisdiction and should be exempt from the Township’s zoning ordinance. The court described the proposed project’s purpose as “to ensure adequate natural gas service in the event of extreme weather events and ‘other parameters.’” The court rejected the Township’s contentions that the Commission failed to conduct a “constitutionally sound environmental review” under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment. The court stated that “[o]ur General Assembly has not chosen to enact an environmental policy statute”—i.e., a “little NEPA”—“and we may not impose one by judicial fiat.” The Commonwealth Court noted intervenors’ “greenhouse gas concerns with respect to leaks, downstream combustion, and alternatives” but said that “whether the use of natural gas ‘is wise or whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result are matters left to the legislature, and not the courts.’” Township of Marple v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Nos. 1385 C.D. 2024, 1423 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 2, 2026)

Parties to CEQA Challenge to Data Center Project Agreed to Settlement Requiring Mitigation Measures

On December 11, 2025, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the City of Pittsburg, California, and real parties in interest requested that the California Superior Court stay proceedings in CBD’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge to the City’s approval of the Pittsburg Technology Park Specific Plan, a three-phase master planned development that included an approximately 368,551-square-foot data center in the first phase. The City, the real parties in interest, and CDB agreed to the incorporation of enhanced mitigation measures to address the project’s greenhouse gas, air quality, biological resources, water and energy demand, and noise impacts. The mitigation measures included rooftop solar and electric charging infrastructure requirements, participation in a renewable energy program to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity, and the owner’s payment of $750,000 to a foundation to distribute funds for sustainability and regional climate resiliency projects. Center for Biological Diversity v. City of Pittsburg, No. N24-2162 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 11, 2025)

U.S. NEW CASES AND OTHER FILINGS

Refrigerant Producer Sought Supreme Court Review of AIM Act Nondelegation Doctrine Question

A company that produces refrigerants filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the question of whether Congress violated the Vesting Clause of Article I of the Constitution in the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) by giving an executive agency (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) “unbounded discretion to choose which private parties are entitled to participate in a multibillion-dollar market” for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The petition contended that the AIM Act—which requires a phasedown of HFC production and consumption—failed to provide any “intelligible principle” to guide EPA’s exercise of discretion as required by the Court’s nondelegation doctrine. The company argued that in determining that Congress had provided sufficient guidance for EPA’s exercise of discretion, the D.C. Circuit had “committed an Article III violation by reading into the Act the guidance Congress did not supply.” RMS of Georgia, LLC, d/b/a Choice Refrigerants v. EPA, No. 25-1079 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2026)

Lawsuits Filed in D.C. Circuit to Challenge EPA Rescission of Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Repeal of Vehicle Emission Standards

On February 18, 2026, 17 public health and environmental organizations filed the first lawsuit challenging EPA’s final rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding for motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act and repealing all greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles and engines for model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. On the same day, a second lawsuit was filed by 18 young people, represented by Our Children’s Trust, which has brought a number of climate suits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments. Their petition indicates that they intend to raise arguments under the U.S. Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In their press release, the youth petitioners say they will argue that the final rule violates their rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment, their right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and separation of powers because “EPA acted outside its authority by abandoning pollution control in favor of the economic interests of certain industries, overriding Congress’s mandate.” On March 6, West Virginia and other states filed a motion to intervene as respondents, arguing that they had a “direct and unique interest” in the proceedings due to the economic costs of the vehicle emissions standards and the questions raised regarding how climate-related matters should be addressed. They also argued that the federal respondents would not adequately represent their interests, including because they were “in a better position to counter anticipated arguments from other States about the consequences of the Final Rule and climate change for States themselves.” On March 19, Massachusetts, 24 other states and territories, the District of Columbia, and 12 local governments filed a petition for review challenging the final rule. Three other petitions for review have been filed, one by the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which describes itself as a nonprofit “association of companies committed to advocating for the advancement of the electric vehicle supply chain”; another by Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis, a faith-based community organization in St. Louis, and Missouri Coalition for the Environment; and a third by Service Employees International Union. American Public Health Association v. EPA, No. 26-1037 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 18, 2026); Venner v. EPA, No. 26-1038 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 18, 2026); Business Climate Initiative Action d/b/a the Zero Emission Transportation Association v. EPA, No. 26-1039 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 20, 2026); Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis v. EPA, No. 26-1043 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 26, 2026); Service Employees International Union v. EPA, No. 26-1051 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 12, 2026); Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 26-1061 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 19, 2026)

D.C. Circuit Requested Additional Briefing After En Banc Oral Argument in Challenge to EPA Inflation Reduction Act Funding Freeze

On February 24, 2026, the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) appeal of a district court’s preliminary injunction (1) barring EPA from effectuating terminations of grants under the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA’s) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and (2) requiring the disbursement of frozen funds for two GGRF programs. A split D.C. Circuit panel vacated the preliminary injunction in September 2025, and the court granted a petition for rehearing en banc in December 2025. For a discussion of the oral argument and the case’s potential outcomes, see this Climate Law Blog post. Two days after the oral argument, one of the plaintiffs-appellees filed a letter noting that the question of the impact of Section 60002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the grant programs “arose repeatedly” during the argument and contending that the court should order supplemental briefing to address the question, given that the issue had not been briefed because of the timing of Section 60002’s enactment. On March 9, the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs to address the ramifications of the repeal of the IRA’s GGRF provision by Section 60002. In particular, the court asked the parties to address whether a claim of violation of the GGRF provision and/or the U.S. Constitution continued to provide a valid basis to affirm all or part of the preliminary injunction. Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir.)

Washington State and Environmental Groups Challenged Department of Energy Order Requiring Coal-Fired Power Plant to Remain Operational

The State of Washington and five environmental organizations filed petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s December 16, 2025 order requiring that a coal-fired generation unit at the TransAlta Central Generation electric generating facility in Centralia, Washington, be made available for operation until March 16, 2026. The unit had been slated to cease operation in December 2025. The Secretary of Energy declared that an emergency existed in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Northwest assessment area resulting from increasing demand and accelerated retirement of generation facilities. In its request for rehearing, the State had argued that the order violated the Federal Power Act, was arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, would undermine energy markets and harm consumers, and failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Among the harms cited by the State in its request for rehearing was that the order would make it harder for Washington to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions reductions mandates. The environmental organizations’ request for rehearing also argued that the order violated the Federal Power Act, including because DOE did not ensure the order was consistent with state environmental laws to the maximum extent practicable, including laws governing the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions. Washington v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 26-1252 (9th Cir., filed Mar. 3, 2026); Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 26-1261 (9th Cir., filed Mar. 4, 2026)

Environmental Groups Challenged LNG Export Authorization for Louisiana Project

Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Department of Energy order granting long-term authorization for export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement nations from the Ventura Global CP2, LLC LNG project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and also challenging DOE’s NEPA categorical exclusion for “Export of natural gas and associated transportation by marine vessel.” The petitioners challenged the categorical exclusion as it was applied in the export authorization and also on its face. In their motions to intervene and protest before DOE, both Sierra Club and NRDC argued, among other things, that the proposed exports would cause environmental harm, including greenhouse gas emissions, across the entire LNG lifecycle, which both NEPA and the Natural Gas Act required DOE to consider. Sierra Club v. Wright, No. 26-1036 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 17, 2026) 

Lawsuit Alleged that Insurer Unlawfully Excluded from Proxy Materials a Shareholder Proposal Requesting Report on Seeking Compensation from Parties Responsible for Climate Change

The nonprofit shareholder representative As You Sow filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the insurance company Chubb Limited to include As You Sow’s climate change-related shareholder proposal in the proxy materials for Chubb’s 2026 shareholder meeting. The complaint described the proposal as asking Chubb to “commission a report assessing whether it would benefit Chubb and its insureds for Chubb to pursue compensation from responsible third parties to offset the cost of insuring against losses stemming from climate change.” The complaint alleged that Chubb gave notice to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2026 that it intended to exclude the proposal from its proxy materials on the grounds that the proposal qualifies for an exception to the rule requiring inclusion in proxy materials of properly submitted proposals. The exception cited by Chubb applies to proposals that deal with matters relating to the company’s “ordinary business operations.” As You Sow v. Chubb Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-00734 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 3, 2026)

Former Cushman & Wakefield Employee Filed ERISA Suit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties Due to 401(k) Plan’s Exposure to Climate Risk and Other Factors

A former employee of Cushman & Wakefield, US, Inc. (Cushman), the commercial real estate services company, filed a civil enforcement action against Cushman and the Cushman & Wakefield Investment Committee alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and retaining investment options in Cushman’s 401(k) plan “in spite of numerous glaring red flags, including chronic underperformance, dangerous aggregation of climate change-related financial risk, unreasonably high fees, and limited market acceptance.” The plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the 401(k) plan whose individual accounts are or were invested in the Plan’s Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund (Westwood Fund) from January 1, 2021 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleged that Cushman, despite being “acutely aware” of climate-related financial risks and having a “long track record” of managing such risks to protect shareholder value and its clients’ portfolios, had “exposed employee retirement savings to significant, unreasonable climate-related financial risk—apparently failing to employ any climate risk management strategy at all.” The complaint alleged that the inclusion of the Westwood Fund as a fund option in the 401(k) plan was a “prime example of this failure.” The complaint alleged that the Westwood Fund “boasts an unsavory combination of financial underperformance and unreasonably high fees, while at the same time exposing investors to massive amounts of climate-related financial risk that threaten to wipe out years of savings under any number of highly plausible scenarios.” The complaint asserted claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to monitor plan investments and remove imprudent investments as well as their duties of prudence and loyalty under ERISA. In addition, the complaint asserted claims that the Investment Committee engaged in prohibited transactions with Fidelity Investments, which provided services to the 401(k) plan, and Fidelity Management Trust Company, which was a trustee and provided services to the plan. The complaint also asserted that Cushman failed to monitor the Investment Committee. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief as well as an order requiring payment of an amount or surcharge necessary to make the 401(k) plan whole for losses resulting from the breaches. Other relief sought included appointment of a special master to oversee development and implementation of a revised investment policy statement (IPS) for the 401(k) plan that provides procedures specific to “standards for climate-competency and emergent risk management assessment” within the Investment Committee and specific climate-risk mitigation and monitoring requirements for plan menu options, as well as non-climate-related procedures. The complaint asked the court to require the defendants to assess investment options based on the IPS and remove investment options deemed imprudent. Kvek v. Cushman & Wakefield, US, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00736 (W.D. Wash., filed Mar. 3, 2026)

Stockholder Derivative Action Charged that BlackRock Directors Pursued Environmental Goals at Expense of Investors’ Interests

A stockholder in BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock) filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that BlackRock directors breached their fiduciary duties by pursuing environmental goals rather than acting solely in stockholders’ financial interests. The complaint alleged that the directors authorized coordinated conduct with other institutional investors to use their ownership stakes in coal producers to suppress coal output and that these actions had exposed the company “to massive antirust liability and financial exposure,” including in an antitrust action brought by Texas and 12 other states. The complaint also alleged that the directors deceived investors about the company’s ESG (environmental, social, and governance) practices and that the defendants failed to disclose that they were “motivated by nonfinancial, ideological goals that caused foreseeable financial and reputational harm” to BlackRock, including the divestment by state pension funds. In addition to asserting that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, the complaint also asserted that the directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to make disclosures in 2025 proxy materials regarding the BlackRock board’s allegedly inadequate risk oversight and regarding the alleged “conspiracy to unlawfully restrain trade and coerce a reduction in coal output,” including failure to disclose that BlackRock was a defendant in the states’ antitrust lawsuit. The complaint also asserted that the directors were unjustly enriched by their unlawful conduct. The complaint requested that damages be awarded to BlackRock and that the court direct BlackRock and the defendants take steps to improve corporate governance and internal procedures, award BlackRock restitution, and award the plaintiff attorney and expert fees and other costs. The defendants indicated that they would file a motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York. On March 9, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order regarding the schedule for that motion. Crognale v. Fink, No. 6:26-cv-00085 (E.D. Tex., filed Feb. 9, 2026)

Virginia Energy Department Filed Breach of Contract Action After Termination of Solar for All Funding

The Virginia Department of Energy (Virginia Energy) sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for allegedly breaching Virginia Energy’s grant agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Solar for All zero-emissions technologies program. The complaint alleged that by February 2025, EPA and Virginia Energy had entered into the agreement, and EPA had obligated funding to Virginia Energy. The complaint alleged that in August 2025, EPA canceled the Solar for All program, unilaterally terminated the grant agreement, and withdrew more than $144 million of grant funds from the account in which Virginia Energy received the grant award. The complaint alleged that EPA “purportedly acted based on its misguided understanding of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which repealed the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund provision pursuant to which the Solar for All program was established but rescinded only “unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out that section.” Virginia Energy contended that EPA erroneously interpreted the OBBBA to rescind all Solar for All appropriations and also that EPA’s interpretation did not constitute grounds for termination under the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. Virginia Energy asserted claims of breach of the express terms of the grant agreement and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint requested money damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; and reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorney fees. Virginia Department of Energy v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-00268 (Fed. Cl., filed Feb. 17, 2026)

States Filed Lawsuit Alleging Trump Administration Unlawfully Eliminated Energy and Infrastructure Programs

Thirteen states filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Secretary of Energy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB took unlawful actions to eliminate energy and infrastructure programs and projects established and funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration utilized executive actions as a “back-up plan” to eliminate the energy and infrastructure programs and to terminate and abandon the plaintiffs’ awards under these programs after the administration failed to convince Congress to rescind previously obligated funds. The complaint alleged that those executive actions included a May 2025 Department of Energy memorandum (DOE Memo) setting forth DOE’s process for evaluating “financial assistance on a case-by-case basis to identify waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.” The plaintiffs contended that DOE used the DOE Memo “as the pretext for terminating and abandoning Plaintiffs’ awards, thus advancing President Trump’s directives to eliminate clean-energy and infrastructure programs and place coercive pressure on Blue States.” The complaint alleged that the defendants’ actions harmed the plaintiffs, including by depriving them of funds to undertake projects to meet state climate goals. The complaint asserted that the defendants’ actions violated separation of powers; were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious and in violation of procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act; and constituted ultra vires executive action. The complaint also asserted First Amendment and equal protection claims on behalf of a California limited liability company that was an awardee under a cooperative agreement. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief, including injunctions requiring DOE to cease any pending review pursuant to the DOE Memo, undoing termination or abandonment of any of the awards at issue in this case, and barring future action based on the DOE Memo. They also asked the court to vacate the DOE Memo. California v. Wright, No. 3:26-cv-01417 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 18, 2026)

Environmental Groups Filed Amended Challenge to Oil and Gas Leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth filed a third amended and supplemental complaint on February 17, 2026 challenging the most recent iteration of the Integrated Activity Plans (IAP) for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and an oil and gas lease sale scheduled for March 18, 2026. The complaint alleged that “[t]he projected proliferation of oil and gas activities under the 2025 IAP will dramatically increase harmful impacts to the Reserve’s ecosystems and the climate, significantly affecting the people and wildlife in the Reserve and beyond.” The complaint alleged that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management scheduled the lease sale in reliance on a 2020 final environmental impact statement and 2025 environmental assessment that did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The complaint also asserted that biological opinion issued for the 2025 IAP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the complaint asserted claims under the Constitution’s Property Clause, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 3:20-cv-00206 (D. Alaska Feb. 17, 2026)

Trump Administration Appealed Massachusetts District Court Order Finding Wind Energy Orders Unlawful

On February 17, 2026, the federal government filed a notice that it would appeal the December 2025 judgment of the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts finding that federal orders pausing wind energy authorizations were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The district court vacated the orders. New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-11221 (D. Mass. Feb. 17, 2026)

Environmental Groups’ Challenge to Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Fire Restoration Project Alleged Failure to Consider Project’s Impacts to Pinyon Jay in Combination with Climate Change

Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit asserting that the U.S. Forest Service violated NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act when it approved a fire restoration project in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest that the plaintiffs alleged authorized 30,000 acres per year of logging and burning over the next 15 to 20 years. The complaint alleged that the project was likely to adversely affect nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act, their critical habitat, and two species proposed for listing. The complaint alleged that the environmental assessment (EA) for the project included only a “vague, landscape-level discussion” that failed to provide a “site-specific understanding of on-the-ground conditions” that was critical to the survival of the wildlife species. The complaint focused on the pinyon jay, “one of the fastest declining bird species in the United States,” alleging that the EA and project documents failed to consider the impacts of the proliferation of non-native and invasive species on the pinyon jay or how climate change would impact the species in combination with the project. Native Ecosystems Council v. Stansfield, No. 2:26-cv-00331 (D. Nev., filed Feb. 10, 2026)

Lawsuit Challenged Approvals for Vegetation Management Treatments on BLM-Managed Lands in Southwest Montana 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies and three other organizations filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Montana challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) authorizations for vegetation management treatments throughout the 905,000 acres in southwest Montana managed by BLM’s Dillon Field Office. The plaintiffs alleged that the BLM defendants deferred selection of specific activities as part of the project “in a way that undermines informed decision-making and meaningful public participation” in violation of NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Among the failures cited in the complaint was an alleged failure to disclose and analyze the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change in the project area and how climate change would continue to affect the project area and the authorized activities’ effectiveness. The complaint also alleged that the BLM defendants failed to take a hard look at the project’s effects on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage, including effects associated with the project’s “widespread prescribed fires.” The plaintiffs also alleged that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had concluded that the project was not likely to jeopardize the threatened whitebark pine in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James, No. 2:26-cv-00002 (D. Mont., filed Jan. 12, 2026)

Mineral Estate Owners Alleged that California Law Restricting Oil and Gas Drilling Was Unconstitutional Taking

A brother and sister who own rights to minerals located on and underneath two parcels in Santa Barbara County filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California asserting that a California law (SB 1137) prohibiting drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors” constituted an unconstitutional taking. Their complaint alleged that “SB 1137 is the latest apex of a long line of attacks on the use of natural resources within California to further the state government’s quest to curb anthropogenic climate change.” The complaint alleged that the law effectively prohibited productive use of the plaintiffs’ mineral estate and thereby eliminated any economically beneficial use of that estate. The complaint further alleged that the law “unfairly requires mineral estate owners to bear the burden of the State’s policy choices regarding climate change.” The plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin enforcement of SB 1137 insofar as it banned issuance of permits for the plaintiffs to drill new oil wells, redrill or deepen existing wells, or permanently alter casing of existing wells. They also requested declaratory relief and attorney fees and costs. NB: The United States filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging SB 1137 on January 14, 2026. Morgan v. Ito, No. 8:26-cv-244 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 27, 2026)

Federal Government Sought to Stay Proceedings After Court Enjoined Orders Suspending Work on Offshore Wind Projects

On February 2, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted motions by the State of New York, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and the developer of the Sunrise Wind Project for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) stop work order suspending work on the project. On February 27, the federal government filed a motion requesting that the court stay the cases through April 9. The government said that the stop work order had been issued “to facilitate review of any potential mitigation measures to address then-new information from the Department of War that implicates national security concerns,” that the stop work order would expire on March 22, and that the end of the review “may result in a further decision from BOEM.” The government argued that despite uncertainty regarding the timing of future BOEM action, proceeding with litigation would potentially waste the court’s and the parties’ resources. Sunrise Wind LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00028 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2026); New York v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00072 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 9, 2026)

The federal government filed a similar motion on February 25 in cases challenging the stop work order suspending activities at the Empire Wind Project. New York, NYSERDA, and the Empire Wind Project developers opposed the stay. Both the New York State plaintiffs and the developers argued that a stay would result in continued commercial uncertainty that would threaten the project. The court had granted a motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the stop work order on January 15. On March 9, the court denied the federal government’s request for a stay, finding that harm due to the government was minimal and that concerns about potential future actions was “too speculative, at this stage, for considerations of judicial economy to weigh in its favor.” Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00004 (D.D.C.); New York v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00071 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 9, 2026)

Recent Endangered Species Act Lawsuits Regarding Species Facing Climate Change Threats

• Lawsuit Sought Final Listing Rule for Eastern Hellbender. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Arizona to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue a final listing rule for the eastern hellbender, the largest amphibian in North America. It inhabits streams of the eastern and midwestern United States and reaches nearly two feet in length. The complaint alleged that the species’ abundance has “drastically declined” in most areas of its range, driven by “myriad human-caused impacts,” including sedimentation from multiple sources, dam construction and other stream impoundments, mining, and direct mortality for purposes such as scientific collections or from careless human behavior. The complaint alleged that climate change is expected to exacerbate trends with negative impacts on the hellbender such as warming stream temperatures and lower flow regimes, and that more frequent and intense flooding exacerbated by climate change are an additional threat. In response to a 2010 listing petition and multiple lawsuits, FWS proposed to list the eastern hellbender as endangered in December 13, 2024. CBD alleged that the deadline for the final rule was December 13, 2025, and asked the court to set a deadline for publication of a final rule. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:26-cv-00093 (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 17, 2026)
• Lawsuit Sought Final Listing Rule for Monarch Butterfly. Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a final listing rule and critical habitat designation for the monarch butterfly. The plaintiffs alleged that recent studies found that the butterfly “could face migratory collapse in less than 20 years because climate change is making butterflies’ winter habitat unsuitable”; the complaint also cited threats from industrial agriculture herbicide spraying and development and from neonicotinoid insecticides. FWS proposed to list the butterfly as threatened and to designate critical habitat in seven California counties on December 12, 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that the deadline under the Endangered Species Act for issuing a final rule was December 12, 2025. They asked the court to order the defendants to issue a final rule by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 3:26-cv-01281 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 12, 2026)
• Lawsuit Asked Court to Compel 90-Day Finding on Petition to Saltmarsh Sparrow. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a 90-day finding in response to CBD’s April 22, 2024 petition to list the saltmarsh sparrow as endangered or threatened. CBD alleged that it submitted the petition after FWS failed to take voluntary action for several years after initiating a discretionary status review in 2019. The complaint alleged that the species’ population has dropped by 87% over the last 30 years and that the “most urgent and immediate threat facing the sparrow is habitat loss caused by rising sea levels.” The sparrow inhabits coastal salt marshes in the Eastern United States. The complaint alleged that other threats to the species include coastal development, oil spills, and predation. CBD asked the court to order FWS to issue a 90-day finding by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00391 (D.D.C., filed Feb. 11, 2026)
• Lawsuit Asked Court to Require Critical Habitat Designation for Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia asking the court to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize critical habitat designation for the Southern Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the fisher, a medium-sized furry carnivore in the same family as weasels, mink, martens, and otters. The complaint alleged that habitat destruction and climate change had contributed to range-wide decline of the species. FWS listed the Southern Sierra Nevada population as endangered in May 2020 but failed to designate critical habitat within the timeline required by the Endangered Species Act. CBD asked the court to direct FWS to finalize critical habitat designation by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:26-cv-00116 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 15, 2026)
• Lawsuit Sought to Compel Critical Habitat Designation for North American Wolverine. A coalition of wildlife conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for the distinct population segment (DPS) of North American wolverine in the lower 48 states. The plaintiffs alleged that the DPS was listed as threatened in November 2023 but that FWS had yet to initiate the process of designating critical habitat as required by the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that FWS’s listing determination was primarily due to “ongoing and increasing impacts of climate change and associated habitat degradation and fragmentation.” Friends of the Bitterroot v. Burgum, No. 9:26-cv-00013 (D. Mont., filed Jan. 14, 2026)
• Lawsuit Challenged Decision Not to List Turtle as Threatened or Endangered. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination in March 2022 that the Rio Grande cooter—a turtle that lives in portions of New Mexico, Texas, and northern Mexico—did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that “[l]ong-term aridification and other extreme weather events driven by climate change threaten the turtle at all stages of its life.” The complaint asserted that FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, including by “failing to address the only study specifically modeling climate change impacts on the turtle’s habitat, and failing to rationally explain its decision to exclude the impact of climate change on the feminization of turtle eggs.” The complaint alleged that the study predicted loss of 76% to 90% of the turtle’s present suitable habitat by 2050 in scenarios based on a moderate or severe increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The complaint alleged that instead of considering this study, FWS “relied on broad, generalized geographical projections.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:26-cv-00043 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 8, 2026)
• Lawsuit Filed to Compel 90-Day Finding on Horseshoe Crab Listing Petition. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a 90-day finding on a February 2024 petition to list the American horseshoe crab under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that the horseshoe crab was one of the oldest living species but that its populations have “crashed” in the past three decades and its habitat is “rapidly disappearing.” Threats identified in the complaint included overharvesting and threats to spawning beaches from development, dredging, erosion, pollution, climate change, and sea level rise. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 1:26-cv-00008 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 5, 2026)

Lawsuit Challenging New York City CSO Outfall Project Alleged Failure to Consider Project’s Ability to Function in the Face of Climate Change Impacts

Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court challenging the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s issuance of a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for a project involving construction of chlorination and dichlorination facilities to treat combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges to Flushing Creek at two outfalls. In their memorandum of law, the organizations claimed that the negative declaration failed to take a hard look at the project’s potential significant adverse impacts, including the project’s “ability to function safely and effectively in the face of the impacts of climate change, particularly more frequent and intense precipitation events” and storms exacerbated by the effects of sea level rise. Guardians of Flushing Bay v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, No. 702957/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Feb. 1, 2026)

Lawsuit Alleged that Approvals for Semiconductor Manufacturing Complex in New York Failed to Comply with State Environmental Review and Climate Laws

An unincorporated association of residents who live near the planned site for a large-scale semiconductor manufacturing complex (the Micron Project) in Onondaga County, New York, and a not-for-profit organization “dedicated to ensuring that public investments create high-quality jobs, protect public health, and advance equitable and sustainable economic development” filed a lawsuit in a New York State trial court seeking to annul the adoption of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Micron Project as well as all approvals granted based on the FEIS. The petitioners also sought to annul the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) determination that the Micron Project was justified despite its inconsistency with the greenhouse gas emissions reduction mandates of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The petitioners contended that DEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by accepting three areas of mitigation—installation of solar panels, installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and allocations of funds for additional projects—as sufficient to mitigate emissions. The petitioners asserted that because it relied on the funding of unidentified projects, DEC’s justification failed to identify real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable mitigation measures. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the petitioners also made climate change-related arguments, including that the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency failed to include an assessment of the Micron Project’s greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with the CLCPA in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) as required by the final scoping document and that the failure to include the draft CLCPA analysis in the DEIS deprived the public of an opportunity to comment. The petitioners contended that a supplemental environmental impact statement should have been required. Neighbors for a Better Micron v. Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency, No. 900751-26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 16, 2026)

Petitioners Raised Sea Level Rise Concerns in CEQA Challenge to Residential Development in Newark

San Francisco Baykeeper and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court asking the court to set aside the City of Newark’s certification of a final environmental impact report (FEIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Mowry Village Project, as well as related approvals for the residential development, which would include 203 single-family detached homes. The alleged shortcomings in the environmental review included a failure to adequately analyze the issue of “coastal squeeze,” which the FEIR defined as “the loss of natural habitats or deterioration of their quality arising from placement of structures along the shoreline, preventing landward transgression of those habitats that would naturally occur in response to sea level rise.” The petitioners alleged that the FEIR failed to respond to scientific papers submitted in public comments “that emphasize coastal squeeze’s threat to natural habitats from the prevalence of coastal infrastructure such as the Project’s coastal armoring and associated flood control infrastructure,” and also failed to address the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s comments regarding how the Project would exacerbate coastal squeeze. Another issue identified by the petitioners was an alleged failure to describe and analyze components of the project that would provide protection against sea level rise; the petition alleged that those components “have significant implications for how sea level rise effects could be managed or exacerbated by the Project, and themselves have potentially significant effects not analyzed by the EIR.” In addition, the petitioners alleged that the FEIR did not address the risk of groundwater rise mobilizing hazardous materials. San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Newark, No. _ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 9, 2026)

Lawsuit Challenged Resiliency Project in Lower Manhattan

Two nonprofit organizations and two residents of Battery Park City in lower Manhattan filed a lawsuit in September 2025 in a New York Supreme Court challenging the Battery Park City Authority’s (BPCA’s) approval of the second phase of the Battery Park City Coastal Resiliency Project. The petition alleged that the Resiliency Project “radically transforms the parks and public spaces of Battery Park City, in order to establish a new flood protection system comprised of flood walls, gates, and drainage infrastructure” to protect residents and businesses from sea level rise and coastal flooding. The petitioners asserted that BPCA violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act, including by improperly segmenting the review of the two phases of the project and by failing to timely complete the first phase of the project with appropriate mitigation measures. The petitioners also alleged that by failing to examine the Resiliency Project’s cumulative impacts, including cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the BPCA violated the Green Amendment of the New York Constitution. In addition, the petitioners asserted that the BPCA alienated parkland without legislative approval in violation of the public trust doctrine. Battery Alliance v. Battery Park City Authority, No. 162911/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)