Climate Litigation Updates (October 3, 2025)

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Federal Court Said Puerto Rican Municipalities’ Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Industry Were Time-Barred

The federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed Puerto Rico municipalities’ federal and Puerto Rico law claims that fossil fuel industry defendants misrepresented the climate change-related risks of their products, which led to destructive hurricanes in 2017 that caused extensive damages. A magistrate judge had recommended in February 2025 that the district court allow Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and antitrust claims to proceed. In its decision dismissing the claims, the district court first found that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell PLC, BP PLC, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips as to all of the municipalities’ claims. The court dismissed all claims against Occidental Petroleum due to insufficient service of process and all claims against Rio Tinto PLC and BHP Group for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over American Petroleum Institute (API) for the federal antitrust and Puerto Rico law claims but that it had jurisdiction for claims against API under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On the merits, the court concluded that claims under RICO, federal antitrust law, and Puerto Rico law were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. The court found that there was “overwhelming evidence of public knowledge of articles, reports, and cases making the connection between Defendants and Plaintiffs’ claims” so that by September 2021, four years after the 2017 hurricanes, the plaintiffs knew or should have known both that they suffered injury and also whom to sue. The court concluded that the continuing tort and related doctrines did not apply; the court also found that equitable tolling based on alleged fraudulent concealment or on more general equitable tolling principles would not apply. The dismissals of claims on jurisdiction and service of process grounds were without prejudice; the dismissals of claims as time-barred were with prejudice. Municipality of Bayamón v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:22-cv-01550 (D.P.R. Sept. 11, 2025)

In a separate case brought by the Municipality of San Juan, the district court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by September 22 why its lawsuit should not also be dismissed given that “the factual and legal questions in this case are virtually identical.” The court subsequently granted San Juan an extension to September 29 and clarified that the order to show cause was “not an invitation to collaterally attack the decision in the related case.” Municipality of San Juan v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:23-cv-01608 (D.P.R. Sept. 11 and 19, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Maine Federal Court Remanded State’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Defendants to State Court and Granted State’s Motion for Costs and Fees

The federal district court for the District of Maine remanded to state court the State of Maine’s lawsuit alleging that fossil fuel industry defendants violated Maine law by deliberately misleading consumers and the public about their products’ contributions to climate change. The court found that the defendants failed to satisfy the requirement for federal officer removal that any action by the defendants under a federal officer’s authority have a sufficient “nexus” to the conduct charged in Maine’s complaint—i.e., the defendants’ acts of “deceiving consumers and the public about climate change.” The district court was not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments attempting to distinguish this case from Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., in which the First Circuit rejected federal officer removal as a basis for removing a similar case filed by the State of Rhode Island. The district court found that new federal activities related to production and distribution of fossil fuels not asserted in Rhode Island and new evidence regarding federal supervision and direction of a previously asserted activity did “not purport to establish any connection between the Defendants’ federally directed activities and their deceptive marketing and failures to warn, which is the only conduct that matters here for purposes of the nexus analysis.” The court also declined to “broaden the scope of the nexus inquiry” to consider the relationship of Maine’s alleged climate change injuries to the asserted federal activities. The court granted Maine’s request for attorney fees and costs. The court said that the issue of costs and fees was a “close call” since federal officer removal was “a complex and evolving area of law,” but found that awarding costs and fees was warranted because the First Circuit had twice rejected the removal arguments, as had at least 12 federal courts across the country. Maine v. BP p.l.c., No. 2:25-cv-00001 (D. Me. Sept. 29, 2025) 

Eighth Circuit Declined SEC Request to Issue Decision on Climate Disclosure Rules

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the petitions challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) climate change disclosure rules be held in abeyance until the SEC either reconsiders the rules through a notice-and-comment rulemaking or renews its defense of the rules. The Eighth Circuit noted that the rules had been stayed (by the SEC) and found that an abeyance would not cause material prejudice to the petitioners. The Eighth Circuit did not accede to the SEC’s July 23, 2025 request that the court decide the case. The Eighth Circuit’s order stated that it was “the agency’s responsibility to determine whether its Final Rules will be rescinded, repealed, modified, or defended in litigation.” Iowa v. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 24-1522 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025)

Eighth Circuit Said Department of Energy Exceeded Authority with Rule Intended to Incentivize Electric Vehicle Production

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2024 final U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) rule that changed the methodology for determining the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values for electric vehicles (EVs). The rule preserved and then gradually phased out a “fuel content factor” that “artificially inflates” EVs’ fuel economy to increase adoption of EVs. The Eighth Circuit first found that state petitioners had standing based on allegations that the rule would result in increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions because inflating EV fuel economy values would allow car manufacturers to continue to produce less efficient gasoline-powered vehicles while still meeting the fuel economy standards for their fleets. The states alleged that increased greenhouse gas emissions would result in rising sea levels that would erode the sovereign territory of state petitioners with coastlines (Florida, Mississippi, and Texas). The Eighth Circuit found that the alleged injury was particularized and concrete, imminent, traceable to the rule, and redressable by the court. The Eighth Circuit also found that the challenge to the DOE rule was not mooted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s adoption of new, more stringent emissions standards. On the merits, the Eighth Circuit ruled that DOE lacked statutory authority to retain and then phase out the fuel content factor. In addition, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the rule’s methodology for calculating cumulative equivalent fuel economy violated notice-and-comment procedures. Iowa v. Wright, No. 24-1721 (8th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025)

Tenth Circuit Reversed Injunction on Town of Vail Restrictions on Motor Vehicles in Pedestrian Areas

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Town of Vail’s ordinance restricting motor vehicles in the Town’s pedestrian areas. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits of the claim that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and the Airline Deregulation Act preempted the ordinance because safety-related exceptions to preemption applied. (When it first adopted restrictions, Vail described the purposes as to “improve the guest experience by reducing the number of oversize vehicles in the pedestrian areas and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of electric vehicles for the final leg of deliveries,” but neither the Tenth Circuit nor the district court’s decision addressed the potential climate change benefits of the ordinance.) Colorado Motor Carriers Association v. Town of Vail, No. 24-1017 (10th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Denied Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grantees’ Request for Injunction Pending Appeal of Dismissal of Challenge to Grant Terminations

The federal district court in the District of Columbia denied Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant recipients’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal of the court’s August 29, 2025 dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of their challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s termination of their grants. The court found that harm to the plaintiffs if the grant funds were returned to the Treasury was not irreparable, given that the plaintiffs admitted that individual grantees could file in the Court of Federal Claims to seek damages for breach of the grant agreements. The court also found that injuries to third parties from loss of funding for “vital projects” was not a basis to find irreparable harm. The Court also found that the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, even if the “legal landscape is in flux.” Appalachian Voices v. EPA, No. 25-cv-1982 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2025)

Wisconsin Federal Court Said Environmental Review Considered Climate Consequences of Land Exchange for Completed Transmission Line

The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to federal defendants and intervenor-defendant utilities in a challenge to a land exchange that granted the utilities fee ownership of land within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to facilitate completion of a 101-mile high-voltage transmission line. The court concluded that the action was not moot even though the transmission line project had been completed and placed in service in September 2024, but on the merits the court rejected arguments that the exchange violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) analysis of the land exchange—“the only reviewable federal action”—complied with NEPA because FWS considered possible environmental impacts, including climate consequences, and a reasonable range of alternatives. With respect to climate impacts, the court noted that a supplemental environmental assessment had found that the land exchange and related route modifications would not change the minor, long-term increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the previously approved transmission line project and that “very minor” climate benefits were expected from carbon sequestration resulting from management for resource conservation purposes of the new property incorporated into the refuge. The court also found that the defendants complied with NEPA’s public participation requirements. National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service, No. 3:24-cv-00139 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 24, 2025)

Federal Court Said Forest Service Failed to Take a Hard Look at Forest Management Project’s Impacts on Water Quality

The federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled for a third time that the U.S. Forest Service failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project in Hoosier National Forest. The court found that the agency failed to adequately consider water quality impacts to the adjacent Lake Monroe, which serves as the sole source of drinking water for more than 145,000 people. The court’s decision did not address the complaint’s allegations regarding failures to address impacts on old-growth forest. The court enjoined the project pending briefing on the appropriate remedy. Monroe County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:24-cv-01560 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2025)

Colorado Federal Court Allowed Portion of Challenge to Denver Natural Gas Appliance Restrictions to Proceed but Said Other Challenges Were Premature

In a lawsuit alleging that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts City and County of Denver laws and regulations restricting or banning use of certain natural gas appliances, the federal district court for the District of Colorado allowed challenges to 2023 amendments to the Energy Code to proceed but found that challenges to Municipal Code provisions directing that additional standards take effect in 2025 and 2027 were not ripe. The court noted that Denver had not yet added the 2025 and 2027 standards to its Energy Code, so the standards were not final and enforceable; the court also found that declining to decide the challenges to the 2025 and 2027 standards would not cause the plaintiffs significant hardship. The court rejected defendant-intervenor Sierra Club’s contention that EPCA’s 60-day limit for judicial review should apply to the challenge to the 2023 Energy Code amendments. Restaurant Law Center v. City & County of Denver, No. 1:24-cv-01862 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025)

Washington Federal Court Said “Too Vague” Maps for Timber Treatment Project Did Not Meet NEPA Hard Look Requirement

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Washington vacated a finding of no significant impact issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the U.S. Forest Service for a timber treatment project in the Colville National Forest. The court found that “the maps identifying areas for commercial timber harvesting are too vague to ensure a hard look at the impact of harvesting and public comment.” The court rejected the plaintiff’s other arguments. The decision did not explicitly address the complaint’s allegations regarding the Forest Service’s failure to take a hard look at the project’s impacts on climate change and the potential impacts of climate change on the project. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 2:24-cv-00157 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Rejected NEPA Challenge to SpaceX Launch License

The federal district court for the District of Columbia found that a programmatic environmental assessment and associated mitigated finding of no significant impact approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for SpaceX’s license to test its reusable launch vehicle at its base in Boca Chica, Texas, satisfied NEPA requirements. The court rejected the argument that the FAA unlawfully delegated its authority to SpaceX and that comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department necessitated preparation of an environmental impact statement. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contentions that the FAA failed to satisfy its obligation to take a hard look at the four issues on which plaintiffs focused: lighting, noise, anomalies (i.e., “unexpected explosions during tests or launches that can spread debris and cause fires around launch areas”), and access closures. Although the complaint alleged failures to analyze impacts on climate, including through the burning and venting of liquid methane, that issue was not a focus of briefing and was not addressed in the court’s decision. Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 1:23-cv-01204 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Dismissed Suit to Compel FEMA’s Issuance of Rule Defining “Resilient” and “Resiliency”

The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that Center for Biological Diversity and four other “nonprofit organizations in the United States and Puerto Rico with climate and environmental interests” did not have standing in their suit to compel the Federal Energy Management Agency (FEMA) to issue a final rule defining the terms “resilient” and “resiliency” for purposes of estimating costs of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing facilities after a disaster pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). A 2018 amendment to the Stafford Act directed the FEMA Administrator to issue a regulation defining those terms. Prior to filing their suit, the plaintiffs submitted a rulemaking petition urging FEMA to prioritize renewable energy, energy demand reductions, and electrification in funding for energy needs. The district court found that the organizations failed to demonstrate either that FEMA’s inaction on finalizing a rule caused their alleged harms or “how defining a term used by FEMA to estimate repair costs, without cabining spending discretion, will plausibly ameliorate any of their alleged injuries,” which included the organizations’ members’ exposure to pollution, power outages from centralized fossil fuel-based power infrastructure, and storm damage to one plaintiff organization’s office, which could be eligible for FEMA relief. Center for Biological Diversity v. Richardson, No. 1:24-cv-01285 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2025)

Plaintiffs Filed Motion in Ninth Circuit to Block California Climate Disclosure Laws After District Court Denied Injunction Pending Appeal

Four weeks after denying a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining two California laws requiring climate change-related disclosures by certain companies, the federal district court for the Central District of California denied a motion by plaintiffs for an injunction pending appeal. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide a basis for revisiting the court’s conclusions that the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment challenges or its conclusion that they did not demonstrate irreparable harm. On September 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for injunction pending  appeal. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:24-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)

California Federal Court Said Plaintiffs Satisfied Notice Requirement for Challenge to Federal Actions Authorizing Restarting of Offshore Drilling 10 Years After Pipeline Rupture

The federal district court for the Central District of California denied intervenor-defendant Sable Offshore Corporation’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging federal actions authorizing Sable to restart offshore oil and gas production from the Santa Ynez Unit in the Santa Barbara Channel without a revision to the development and production plan (DPP). Oil and gas production at the Santa Ynez Unit was shut down after a 2015 rupture in an onshore pipeline that transported oil from the Unit. The court concluded that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s 60-day notice provision applied to the lawsuit and that the plaintiffs’ September 2024 notice of intent to sue satisfied this requirement even though the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management subsequently determined in April 2025 that Sable did not need to revise the DPP. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 2:25-cv-02840 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Said Climate Working Group Did Not Qualify as Exception to Federal Advisory Committee Act but Found that Environmental Groups Did Not Establish Irreparable Harm Warranting Preliminary Injunction

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Climate Working Group assembled by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright did not fall within an exception to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for groups “assembled to exchange facts or information with a Federal official.” The court found that a “single act of incorporating feedback on a draft of an otherwise independent report” was “not analogous to the prolonged exchanges between indeterminate groups” that courts had found to fall within the FACA exception. The court further found that no reasonable jury could find that the report authored by the Climate Working Group did not constitute “advice or recommendations for a renewed approach to climate policy” and not a “mere ‘review’ of the literature.” The court denied the environmental group plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to provide them with the Climate Working Group records; the court found the plaintiffs’ inability to draw on the records in comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rescission of the 2009 Clean Air Act endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions did not constitute an irreparable informational injury. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Sept. 17, 2025)

Southern District of New York Granted New York State Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Business Groups’ Challenge to Climate Superfund Law

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion by the New York Attorney General and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to transfer business groups’ lawsuit challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York. The court first noted that it was undisputed that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of New York, where West Virginia and other states and business associations had filed a challenge to the law several weeks before this lawsuit was filed. The court then determined that the transfer would serve the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses. The court concluded that the interests of justice weighed heavily in favor of transfer because the “central issues” of this case and the West Virginia case were “substantially similar such that it would be inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome to litigate them in two separate courts.” The court distinguished this determination from its previous decision denying a motion to transfer the United States’ challenge to the Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York. The court noted the difference in plaintiff types (federal government entities versus business organizations) and the presence in the United States’ case of “several legal issues” that did not overlap with the issues in this case. The court found that that other factors such as the plaintiffs’ choice of forum and convenience to witnesses and parties either weighed only slightly in favor or against transfer or were neutral. The court also found that application of the “first-filed” rule would create an unrebutted presumption for transfer. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. James, No. 1:25-cv-01738 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2025)

California Federal Court Allowed Environmental Groups to Proceed with Plastic Pollution Nuisance Claim Against Exxon

The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to dismiss environmental organizations’ lawsuit seeking to hold Exxon liable for its alleged contributions to plastic pollution in California. The organizations’ complaint included allegations regarding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with “advanced recycling.” The court rejected Exxon’s contention that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Exxon and found that the environmental groups’ complaint adequately stated a public nuisance claim with allegations that Exxon’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in California’s “plastic pollution crisis” and that Exxon foresaw the harm that allegedly had resulted from its single-use plastics business. The court dismissed the organizations’ claim of Unfair Competition Law violations but denied Exxon’s motion to strike allegations under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law. The court found that anti-SLAPP law’s Public Interest Exemption applied. Sierra Club v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-cv-07288 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)

Minnesota Appellate Court Upheld Updated Environmental Review for University Arena Project

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld a negative EIS declaration issued by the City of St. Paul for a planned multipurpose arena project at the University of St. Thomas. The City issued the negative EIS declaration on remand from the court’s earlier decision concluding that the City’s environmental review under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act was deficient. The court found that the updated review adequately responded to the court’s earlier ruling, including the determination that the original negative EIS declaration overlooked greenhouse gas emissions from increased spectator traffic. The court found that the City’s updated declaration explained the rationale for its determination that the greenhouse gas emissions did not create significant environmental effects, including from additional phased actions that the University was taking, and that substantial evidence in the record reasonably supported its findings. The court also said it would not revisit its determination in the first case that substantial evidence supported the decision to omit cooling and refrigeration system emissions from the greenhouse gas analysis. The court also rejected new challenges raised for the first time. In re City of St. Paul’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed University of St. Thomas Phased Action, No. A25-0076 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2025)

North Dakota Trial Court Denied Dakota Access Pipeline Developers’ Request to Block Greenpeace International’s Dutch Anti-SLAPP Lawsuit

The North Dakota District Court denied the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) developers’ request for an anti-suit injunction prohibiting Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with an action against the developers in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive. A District Court jury found in March 2025 that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers for actions related to DAPL protests. In its order denying the anti-suit injunction, the court found that the threshold considerations for an injunction were not satisfied. Although the parties in the North Dakota and Dutch case were the same, the court found that the issues were different since the Dutch case involved defamation allegations by GPI against the developers and since North Dakota does not recognize a SLAPP or anti-SLAPP action. The court also found that the Dutch action’s frustration of a policy in the North Dakota court was “not a certainty” and declined to find that the Dutch action was vexatious or that it threatened North Dakota courts’ in rem jurisdiction or prejudiced equitable considerations in the developers’ North Dakota lawsuit. The court also concluded that the issue of comity did not apply because GPI’s SLAPP and defamation claims were not pending before the North Dakota court. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Sept. 9, 2025)

Charleston Elected Not to Appeal Dismissal of Climate Case

On September 15, 2025, Law360 confirmed that the City of Charleston, South Carolina, had decided not to appeal the August 2025 dismissal of its lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for the harmful effects of climate change. The deadline to appeal was September 5.  City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., No. 2020CP1003975 (S.C. Ct. Com.)

Montana Trial Court Awarded Held v. State Youth Plaintiffs Attorney Fees and Costs

The Montana District Court awarded the youth plaintiffs who prevailed on climate change-based Montana Constitution claims against the State of Montana and other State defendants more than $2.8 million in attorney fees and almost $100,000 in additional costs. Considering the factors for an award of attorney fees under the Private Attorney General Doctrine, the court found that the “strength and societal importance of the public policies vindicated by this litigation is extremely high”; that circumstances—including harms to Montana’s children and natural environment—established a need for private enforcement; and that the number of people benefitting from the court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs was the number of persons who benefit from rights in the Montana Constitution. The court also found that the equities in the case supported an award of attorney fees pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, including because the parties were not similarly situated since the plaintiffs were “younger persons suffering the effects of climate change, with arguably no power beyond bringing suit to address their state government’s failure to abide by constitutional provisions,” and the defendants had “significantly more resources in terms of governmental structure, personnel, and power to devote to the duty to protect Montana’s natural resources and environment, including in any court case.” Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Sept. 16, 2025) 

Miami-Dade County Trial Court Transferred Youth Plaintiffs’ Climate Suit to Tallahassee

On July 28, 2025, the Florida Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County granted the Florida Public Service Commission’s motion to transfer youth plaintiffs’ climate change lawsuit against the Commission to Leon County where the Commission’s Tallahassee headquarters are located. The plaintiffs assert that the Commission has violated their fundamental and inalienable rights to life under the Florida Constitution “by and through its pattern and practice of determining fossil fuel-dependent 10-Year Site Plans of Florida’s electric utilities are suitable, even though such conduct results and locks in a fossil fuel-dependent electricity sector in Florida.” On September 16, the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay pending appeal. Reynolds v. Florida Public Service Commission, No. 2024-019966-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.)

California Court Rejected CEQA Challenges to Highway Expansion Project

A California trial court dismissed environmental organizations’ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuits challenging the California Department of Transportation’s environmental review of the Yolo 80 Corridor Improvements Project. The project adds a lane of traffic to segments of Interstate 80 and U.S. Route 50. The court rejected all of the petitioners’ arguments, including that the CEQA review was improperly “piecemealed,” that the project was inconsistent with the regional transportation plan, and that the CEQA review overestimated the project’s benefits such as congestion relief and underestimated impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions. Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Transportation, No. 24CV077619 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2025)

Evian Water Company Settled Greenwashing Suits

On August 29, 2025, Plastic Pollution Coalition (the Coalition) and defendant Danone Waters of America, LLC (Danone) stipulated to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the Coalition’s greenwashing suit alleging that Danone violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by making false and misleading representations regarding the “sustainability” and “natural” quality of evian bottled water products. On August 19, the parties notified the court that they had agreed to a settlement of the matter.  Plastic Pollution Coalition v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 2024-CAB-004562 (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2025)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

United States Filed Brief Supporting Supreme Court Review of Colorado Supreme Court Decision Allowing State-Law Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation’s petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s May 2025 opinion holding that federal law did not preempt claims brought by the City of Boulder and the County Commissioners of Boulder County (together, Boulder) under state law to hold the companies liable for climate change-related injuries. The U.S. contended that review by the Court was warranted because both the Constitution and the Clean Air Act barred Boulder’s state law claims and because the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision conflicted with the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. on a “frequently recurring issue of exceptional importance,” given the number of other pending cases brought by state and local governments against fossil fuel industry defendants. Six other briefs were filed in support of the petition by the following amici curiae: American Petroleum Institute; Atlantic Legal Foundation, Washington Legal Foundation, and Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel; American Tort Reform Association; two law professors; Frontier Institute, Independence Institute, Pelican Institute for Public Policy, and Manhattan Institute; and a retired U.S. Air Force general and a retired U.S. Navy admiral.  Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (U.S.)

Environmental Groups Filed Suit to Compel Final Determination on Endangered Species Act Status of Miami Cave Crayfish

Center for Biological Diversity and Miami Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit in federal district court for the Southern District of Florida to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish a final determination on its proposed rule to list the Miami cave crayfish as threatened. FWS proposed to list the species in a September 20, 2023 notice; the Endangered Species Act requires that a final determination be published within one year of the proposed rule. Citing the proposed rule, the complaint alleged that the primary threat to the species is “saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer resulting from sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and storms of increasing intensity.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-24487 (S.D. Fla., filed Sept. 30, 2025)

Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Decision Upholding Approval of Line 5 Fuel Pipeline

The Michigan Supreme Court granted two applications for leave to appeal a February 2025 Court of Appeals decision affirming the Michigan Public Service Commission’s conditional approval of an application by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge) to replace and relocate a portion of its Line 5 fuel pipeline to a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. In its order granting an application filed by Tribes and environmental organizations, the Supreme Court indicated it would consider whether the Court of Appeals erred by (1) “applying a deferential standard of review rather than determining de novo whether the proposed conduct will pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or state’s other natural resources or the public trust in these resources under … the Michigan Environmental Protection Act” and (2) “affirming the Michigan Public Service Commission’s limitation on the scope of the evidence to be reviewed regarding its determinations under … MEPA and its decision to exclude evidence of the history and risk of oil spills along the entire length of Line 5 in those determinations.” In the order granting a water issues-focused environmental organization’s application, the Supreme Court indicated it would consider common-law public trust doctrine issues. In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5, Nos. 168346, 168335-9 (Mich. Sept. 19, 2025)

Rhode Island and Connecticut Challenged Federal Stop Work Order for Revolution Wind, Citing Impacts on Ability to Achieve State Mandates to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On September 4, 2025, Rhode Island and Connecticut filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) August 22, 2025 issuance of a Stop Work Order requiring the developer of the Revolution Wind offshore wind project to cease construction. The two states asserted that BOEM’s action violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which the states said “demand reasoned decision-making, fidelity to statutory limits, and respect for the settled expectations of sovereign States and regulated parties.” The states alleged that the Stop Work Order harmed them by jeopardizing a project that is “critical to the States’ economic vitality, energy mix, and climate goals.” The complaint identified state-level statutory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify the energy supply and alleged that the Stop Work Order would imperil compliance with such mandates. On September 17, the states filed a motion for a preliminary injunction lifting the Stop Work Order. After the District of the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) granted a motion for preliminary injunction lifting the Stop Work Order in a case brought by the project’s developer, the federal defendants asked the Rhode Island court to hold the preliminary injunction motion in the states’ case in abeyance. The federal defendants also had asked the court to transfer the states’ case to the D.D.C. Green Oceans, a nonprofit organization that is a plaintiff in litigation challenging federal approval of Revolution Wind, moved to intervene as a defendant. Rhode Island v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00439 (D.R.I., filed Sept. 4, 2025)

Washington Supreme Court to Consider Validity of Natural Gas Access Ballot Initiative 

The Washington Supreme Court agreed to retain for direct review an appeal by the Building Industry Association of Washington of a trial court decision that held that a 2024 ballot initiative regarding natural gas use and electrification violated the Washington Constitution’s single-subject rule and other requirements for ballot initiatives. The ballot title for the initiative stated that it “would repeal or prohibit certain laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and/or promote electrification, and require certain utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers.” Climate Solutions v. State, No. 104240-0 (Wash. Sept. 3, 2025)