Litigation
Climate Journalism is “Breaking but Not Broken”
The Drain is a weekly roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
The 2026 Pulitzer Prize announcements happened this week and environmental reporting was in the mix though not central enough if you ask me. Here’s where it shined: The Breaking News Reporting category was dominated by journalism covering climate-fueled extreme weather. Finalists included staff of the Seattle Times for more than 100 stories covering catastrophic …
Continue reading “Climate Journalism is “Breaking but Not Broken” “
CONTINUE READINGAn Encouraging Signal About Federal Preemption
A new Supreme Court ruling should help states defend their climate laws.
The Trump Administration and its allies are attacking state climate laws with challenges based on preemption, arguing that federal law trumps state powers. A new Supreme Court ruling signals that the Court respects state prerogatives and isn’t willing to find preemption without a clear basis in a federal statute. Although the facts of the case are remote from environmental law, the Court’s attitude toward preemption has broader relevance.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s Slump
The Trump regime is losing ground, creating new policy opportunities.
Trump’s term began with brutal attacks on environment and clean energy policies, but he now longer looks unstoppable. Dems are likely to make major gains in the mid-terms, consumers are deeply unhappy, and his Iran War drags on. These setbacks create openings to push back against his “energy dominance” agenda. Outside the U.S., his effort to expand fossil fuel use is failing. Domestically, there are now openings to blunt his attacks on clean tech and prepare the ground for new policies when he leaves office.
CONTINUE READINGHarmful Activities, the Duty to Rescue, and Climate Change
A concept from tort law suggests another argument for international climate adaptation funding.
Do countries that caused past carbon emissions have a duty to help pay for adaptation and disaster response? Much of the argument about this is phrased in terms of damages for past actions, not unlike arguments that oil companies should pay damages for oil spills. Tort law suggests another way of looking at the issue, one that doesn’t depend on whether the past emissions themselves give rise to duty for reparations. Instead, it depends on the principle that people whose activities contribute to accident risks, even innocently, have a duty to assist victims.
CONTINUE READINGDemocratic Governors and the A-word
The Drain is a weekly roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
The governors and legislative leaders of several blue states on the East Coast are obsessed with the A-word: affordability. So much so that several of them are looking to pull money away from state programs that boost renewable energy and energy efficiency, as a shortcut to try to lower electricity costs. In Maryland, Rhode Island, …
Continue reading “Democratic Governors and the A-word”
CONTINUE READINGChallenging Hegseth’s National Security Gambit
Hegseth may not have as much power as he thinks to run roughshod over the Endangered Species Act.
According to a DOJ filing, “[o]n March 13, 2026, the Secretary of War notified the Secretary of the Interior that the Secretary of War found it necessary for reasons of national security to exempt from the ESA’s requirements all Gulf of America oil and gas exploration and development activities.” It’s difficult but not impossible to challenge the government on issues of national security. Hegseth’s demand for an exemption to allow oil companies to destroy endangered species is a bold, aggressive move, much like the decision to go to war against Iran. As with the war itself, however, the legal and political aftermath may prove a lot messier than the Administration is anticipating. Here are some possible arguments that could potentially limit Hegseth’s powers.
CONTINUE READINGFive Lessons from the Tariff Case
What can the case teach us about litigating environmental cases against Trump?
Learning Resources v. Trump, the recent tariff ruling, doesn’t say anything direct about environmental cases. But there are a series of useful lessons for environmental litigators. One obvious one is that the conservatives aren’t all “in the tank” for Trump (though Alito and maybe Thomas seem have gone pretty MAGA). Trump’s nasty insults of the conservatives who ruled against him probably won’t bring them back onto the Trump train. His effusive praise for the three conservatives who voted for the tariffs may even increase frictions within the supermajority. Here are five more lessons.
CONTINUE READINGDissecting EPA’s Endangerment Repeal: Series Wrap-Up:
Here’s what you need to know to understand the upcoming legal battles.
Yesterday was the last of five Legal Planet posts on EPA’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding, which it based on legal arguments that it has no power to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. The series began with a quick overview of the issues. The remaining posts focus on the reasons that EPA was right to issue the Endangerment Finding in the first place in 2009, the legal precedents supporting the Endangerment Finding. and the impact of the repeal on future climate actions. The bottom line is that EPA was right to issue the Endangerment Finding and wrong to repeal it.
CONTINUE READINGThe Tangled Web of the Boulder v. Suncor Cert Grant
Pass me some aspirin. Attorney General Rob Bonta might want some, too.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the Boulder v. Suncor Energy case, one of the growing set of state-law nuisance and consumer protection cases filed by states and municipalities against fossil fuel companies for harms from climate change. The Court will review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to allow the case …
Continue reading “The Tangled Web of the Boulder v. Suncor Cert Grant”
CONTINUE READINGHas Trump Actually “Driven a Dagger Through the Heart” of Climate Policy?
Lee Zeldin
Don’t jump to conclusions based on the Administration’s spin operation.
there’s a good chance that the repeal of the Endangerment Finding will be reversed by the courts. That would ground federal climate policy even more firmly in the law, so the Administration is taking a gamble. Saying they’ve one is as premature as a roulette player who’s just put all their chips on one number announcing that they’re now rich before the wheel has even started turning. Even if the courts do uphold the repeal, a lot will depend on just what legal theory the judges adopt. Some legal theories would slam the door on efforts by future Democratic presidents. Others would leave room to move forward.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
