On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively the “Services”) published a notice in the Federal Register of a proposed rulemaking that would rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The ESA prohibits “take” of threatened and endangered species.
Latest from Stoel Rives Environmental Law
Fed up with Federal Rules? OMB Implements a Federal Deregulation Idea Solicitation Process on White House Urging.
On April 9, 2025, the White House published a new Memorandum entitled “Directing The Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” aimed at identifying and reviewing unlawful or potentially unlawful regulations for potential repeal. The Memorandum avers that illegal, unnecessary, and onerous regulations impede the Administration’s objectives of promoting economic growth and American innovation, and impose massive costs
SCOTUS Strikes Down “End-Result” Limitations in NPDES Permits
Whether issued by an authorized State or the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued under the Clean Water Act allows a permittee to discharge pollutants to waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). This week, the Supreme Court clarified in San Francisco v. EPA (Case No. 23-753) that the
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes to List the Monarch Butterfly as Threatened, Seeks Comments on Developing a Final Rule
On December 12, 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) published notice in the Federal Register of a proposed rule to list the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The proposed rule designates proposed critical habitat for the monarch in California and includes an ESA section 4(d)
The Chevron Doctrine’s Gone, but the APA Lives On
Many speculated on just how much Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper Bright) would affect agency rulemaking challenges. Well, the D.C. Circuit is showing that that effect maybe milder than expected. Huntsman Petrochemical, the American Chemistry Council, and the Louisiana Chemical Association (Petitioners) tested how a post-Chevron world could look under judicial review of agency
Supreme Court 2024: Key Rulings Reshape Federal Regulatory Authority
As the Supreme Court’s recent term drew to a close, the Court issued four opinions that promise to reshape the federal regulatory landscape. These decisions—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Ohio v. EPA, and SEC v. Jarkesy—both individually, and in combination, constrain the power of federal agencies
EPA Reconsiders New Risk Management Program Regulations, but Regulations Remain in Effect
Stoel Rives Summer Associate Maya Ward co-authored this post.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals placed the challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) risk management regulation on hold for 120 days while the EPA reconsiders the concerns raised by challengers. Order, Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 24-1125 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2024). The underlying revisions
Restart the Clock: SCOTUS Expands the Timeframe to Challenge Agency Actions
Stoel Rives Summer Associate Jessica Wright co-authored this post.
In a landmark decision on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for facial challenges to agency regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) begins when the final agency action injures a plaintiff, not when the regulation is issued. This ruling,
SEC v. Jarkesy: In-House Adjudicators are Out and the Jury is In
Why do environmental professionals need to know about a recent securities case? Read on for details. In response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to combat securities fraud and increase market transparency. The Securities
Ohio v. EPA: SCOTUS Issues Stay in EPA’s Multi-State Air FIP
Stoel Rives Summer Associate Jessica Wright co-authored this post.
We want to bring to your attention a recent development involving the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of air pollutants. In the case Ohio v. EPA, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the enforcement of the EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), halting the EPA’s ability to