Climate Litigation Updates (April 30, 2026)

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes monthly summaries of developments in climate-related litigation. We also add these developments to The Climate Litigation Database on an ongoing basis. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].

This month’s updates focus on new developments in U.S. litigation, but you can view recent updates in cases from around the world in The Climate Litigation Database and next month’s Climate Litigation Updates will compile all the latest additions.

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE LITIGATION DATABASE FOR UPDATE #210

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Maryland High Court Affirmed Dismissal of Local Governments’ State Law Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

On March 24, 2026, the Maryland Supreme Court affirmed trial court decisions dismissing state common law claims brought by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the City of Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County (the “local governments”) seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for harms resulting from climate change. The court’s majority concluded that state common law did not apply to the conduct alleged by the local governments and that, even if state law did apply, the local governments failed to state claims for public and private nuisance, trespass, and strict liability and negligent failure to warn. 

The court ruled that the Maryland local governments’ state law tort claims involved regulation of interstate and international pollution and would therefore be permitted only under federal law. The court rejected the local governments’ characterization of their claims as seeking redress for “deceptive and misleading commercial conduct” such as alleged concealment and denial of the connection between fossil fuel products and climate change. The court stated that “[n]o amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm.” 

After surveying the “backdrop” of six federal cases concerning application of federal law to claims arising from interstate pollution, the court concluded that the local governments’ claims “fall squarely within the inherently federal areas of interstate pollution and foreign affairs and may therefore only be brought under federal law.” The court therefore held that federal common law displaced any state law claims. The court further concluded that the Clean Air Act would displace any federal common law claims involving national emissions. Citing the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., the majority also determined that the Clean Air Act’s enactment did not make state law applicable, “given the federalism concerns undergirding the entire rational of federal common law,” and that the Clean Air Act itself did not authorize states to regulate the conduct at issue in the local governments’ cases. To the extent the local governments’ claims concerned foreign emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, the majority concluded that foreign policy concerns would foreclose any federal common law claims. 

The court also found that even if the local governments’ claims were not displaced or preempted, they failed to state claims as a matter of law. Regarding the local governments’ public nuisance claim, the court declined to expand common law nuisance to seek damages for conduct governed by an extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework or to require abatement of extraterritorial conduct. Regarding private nuisance, the court wrote that “[a]ssuming without deciding that there is a general public right to be free from adverse effects of climate change, the local governments, as owners of public land, fail to establish that they have suffered an injury that is different in kind from that suffered by members of the public.” Regarding trespass, the court found that the connection between the companies’ alleged activities and the alleged climate change-induced harms to the local governments’ properties was “far too attenuated” to establish a trespass claim. Regarding the failure to warn claims, the court found that the local governments failed to state claims because there was no “duty to warn the entire human race of the effects of climate change” under Maryland’s common law.

The chief justice concurred with the majority’s determination that the local governments’ state law claims were preempted but would not have addressed the alternative argument that the local governments failed to state cognizable claims. Another justice wrote a concurring opinion to explain his view that the local governments’ theory of liability was incompatible with tort law.

Two justices dissented from the majority’s determination that the local governments’ claims were displaced or preempted. The dissenting opinion stated that it was “clear from the Majority Opinion that it did not decide the case Plaintiffs brought. Rather, it decided the case Defendants described” (i.e., as “suits about emissions, global climate regulation, and the imposition of

Maryland tort law on the energy decisions of billions of people worldwide”). In the dissent’s view, the majority’s preemption inquiry had improperly focused on whether the cases’ subject matter “touches” greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the legal duty not to deceive that the local governments claimed the companies violated. The dissent further concluded that even accepting the defendants’ characterization of the local governments’ claims, the majority’s conclusion that the state law claims were preempted was faulty. One of the dissenting justices also would have denied the motions to dismiss the public nuisance and negligent failure to warn claims for failure to state a claim. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., No. 11 (Md. Mar. 24, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Decision Allowing State to Proceed with Climate Deception Claims Against Fossil Fuel Defendants

The Minnesota Supreme Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ petitions for further review of the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ January 2026 decision affirming denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit alleging that the defendants caused climate change-related injuries to the State by misleading the public regarding the threat of climate change and their products’ connection to the threat. The questions the defendants asked the Supreme Court to review included whether the Court of Appeals improperly ruled on an issue regarding the applicability of Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law that the parties did not raise and whether the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the anti-SLAPP statute not to apply to claims seeking equitable relief. The defendants also sought review on questions regarding the constitutionality of Minnesota’s statute providing for general personal jurisdiction. State v. American Petroleum Institute, Nos A25-0407, A25-0408, A25-0410 (Minn. Apr. 15, 2026)

Supreme Court Briefing Schedule Set in Suncor Energy v. Boulder 

On March 11, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a request on behalf of all parties for extensions of time to file merits briefs in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The petitioners’ brief is due May 14, 2026. The respondents’ brief is due July 27, 2026. The request for the extensions indicated that the schedule would enable the case to be heard during the Court’s October 2026 sitting. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (U.S.)

State Courts in Hawai‘i and Washington Denied Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Requests to Stay Cases Pending Supreme Court’s Resolution of Boulder; California Court Stays California Attorney General’s and Local Governments’ Cases 

In a climate change-related wrongful death action brought by a woman seeking to hold manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of fossil fuels liable under product liability and public nuisance theories for her mother’s death during the Pacific Northwest heat dome in 2021, a trial court in Washington State on April 9, 2026 denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of  Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Washington trial court found that the outcome of the Boulder proceedings was “far from certain,” including whether the Court would issue a substantive ruling and the Court would resolve the issues in this case. The Court also found that a potentially 14-month stay could prejudice the plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery, that the public interest weighed against the stay, and that potential prejudice to the defendants was mitigated by the fact that some documents had already been preserved and some discovery had already been conducted in other similar cases. Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 25-2-15986-8 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2026)

On April 14, 2026, the California state trial court hearing the climate cases brought by the State of California and California local governments against fossil fuel companies stayed the coordinated proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s final resolution of the Boulder case. The trial court found that “it would be in the interests of justice and would further judicial efficiency to issue such a stay here, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Boulder may be dispositive, in whole or in substantial part, of the issues posed in these cases; is likely to be rendered in a reasonable period of time; and a stay will not cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.” Fuel Industry Climate Cases, No. CJC-24-005310 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2026)

A Hawai‘i state trial court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ request that it continue a stay of the State of Hawai‘i’s climate suit. The court found that a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of the Boulder case or pending “final disposition” of the U.S.’s federal lawsuit seeking to block Hawai‘i’s case could create “lengthy and uncertain delays” that would “run contrary to the Court’s duty to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” In addition, the court found that the judicial-economy benefits of a stay were “speculative and, at best, partial.” The court noted, among other considerations, that the Supreme Court could resolve Boulder on jurisdictional grounds and that a merits decision in Boulder might not address Hawai‘i’s “deception-based claims or requests for non-damages relief.” The court also found that the balance of hardships weighed against a stay. State v. BP p.l.c., No. 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23, 2026)

Hawaii Federal Court Ruled that United States Lacked Standing to Bring Case to Block Hawaii’s Climate Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies

In the United States’ lawsuit seeking to prevent the State of Hawaii (the State) and the Hawaii governor and attorney general (collectively the “State defendants”) from filing a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies to hold them liable for harms resulting from climate change, the federal district court for the District of Hawaii granted the State defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court found that the U.S. failed to allege any of the elements of standing. First, the court found that the U.S.—which filed its lawsuit one day before the State filed a state court lawsuit against fossil fuel companies—did not allege a concrete injury in fact because the U.S.’s complaint relied on conclusory allegations and a speculative theory of harm. The court also found that the complaint did not provide a basis to find that a lawsuit filed by the State “would predictably result” in harm to the U.S. The court also found that the declaratory relief sought by the U.S. would not redress the alleged injury and that federal courts would not grant injunctive relief halting a state court lawsuit based on a hypothetical injury to the United States. The court also found that the U.S.’s “abstract, theoretical concerns” regarding the State’s potential lawsuit were not redressable. Although standing analysis is based on the facts that existed at the time a complaint is filed, the court also concluded that consideration of the state court complaint would not alter the conclusion that the U.S. lacked standing, given that the U.S.’s complaint “did not correctly predict the nature of the state law tort claims” the defendants would assert and given that the U.S.’s theory of harm was still based on “a series of abstract harms and contingencies about hypothetical actions third parties may take.” United States v. Hawaii, No. 1:25-cv-00179 (D. Haw. Apr. 15, 2026)

Ninth Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Challenge to Federal Discounting Policies

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court that 18 youth plaintiffs lacked standing for their claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other federal defendants’ discounting policies violated their constitutional rights by valuing the present more than the future and by causing the federal defendants to underregulate greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in climate change harms to the plaintiffs. First, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs did not allege a viable injury to their equal protection rights. The court said they failed to plead facts supporting an inference that discrimination against children was a factor “motivating” the discounting policies or their application. Second, the Ninth Circuit found that even if the plaintiffs pleaded cognizable injuries from climate change, the theory of how the discounting policies caused those injuries was “too speculative and tenuous” to satisfy standing requirements. Third, the Ninth Circuit concluded that its decision in Juliana v. United States foreclosed the plaintiffs’ contention that a declaration that the discounting policies violated their constitutional rights would redress their alleged injuries. The Ninth Circuit wrote that “[s]peculation is the only pathway to conclude that declaratory relief will remedy” the injuries. Fourth, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying them leave to further amend their complaint. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that “deep, fundamental flaws” in the plaintiffs’ theories would make amendment of the complaint futile. G.B. v. EPA, No. 25-2473 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2026)

Federal Court Said Department of Energy Grantees Lacked Standing for Permanent Injunctive Relief After Grants Were Reinstated

On April 3, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by six awardees and subawardees of environmental project grants from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The court ruled in January 2026 that DOE’s and other federal defendants’ decisions to terminate the grants because the grantees were based in “Blue States” violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees because the classification “was not rationally related to the asserted legitimate government purpose of ‘administering grant programs consistent with the agency’s priorities.’” The plaintiffs’ grants were among the more than 300 grants DOE terminated in October 2025 after Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought posted on social media that “[n]early $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.” In its April decision, the court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy standing requirements for a permanent injunction because they did not show they faced an “imminent threat” of future injury. The court noted that the defendants had reinstated the plaintiffs’ grants after the January decision and that the plaintiffs’ assertions regarding the defendants’ actions in similar contexts and ongoing funding reviews did not establish that the plaintiffs themselves “face a concrete threat of imminent injury” by the defendants in this case. City of Saint Paul v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-03899 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2026)

Federal Court Dismissed Groups’ Challenge to Federal Agencies’ Removal of Website Tools Providing Access to Environmental Information

The federal district court for the District of Columbia agreed with federal agencies that four environmental groups lacked standing for their claims challenging the agencies’ removal of tools from the agencies’ websites that compiled and presented environmental information. The tools were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen, the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Equitable Transportation Community Explorer, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Future Risk Index. The court found that the environmental groups did not demonstrate a cognizable legal right to the information they sought and therefore did not show they suffered an informational injury. The court further found that the alleged impairment to the groups’ advocacy or education activities would not be sufficient to establish organizational standing and that plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that plaintiff Environmental Integrity Project suffered economic harm due to its Oil & Gas Watch website no longer being able to rely on EJScreen. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 25-cv-01112 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2026)

Federal District Court Declined to Stay Injunction of Texas Law Targeting Companies that “Boycott” Fossil Fuels; State Defendants Asked Fifth Circuit for Stay

On April 14, 2026, the federal district court for the Western District of Texas denied the Texas Attorney General and Texas Comptroller’s (State Defendants’) motion to stay pending appeal the court’s February order enjoining them from enforcing 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. The court found that the State Defendants were unlikely to succeed on their arguments (1) that the plaintiff—American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC)—lacked standing and (2) that the court’s First Amendment analysis  wrongly analyzed the law as regulating private conduct rather than as addressing the State of Texas’s role as a market participant. The court further found that the State Defendants did not demonstrate irreparable harm because their asserted harms regarding the injunction’s impacts on contracts were speculative and ASBC’s members demonstrated irreparable harm from losing the opportunity to compete for investments from Texas due to their exercise of their First Amendment rights. The court also found that the injunction of the law was in the public interest. On April 15, the State Defendants filed a motion in the Fifth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. American Sustainable Business Council v. Hancock, No. 1:24-cv-01010 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2026)

Federal Court Denied U.S. Request for Preliminary Injunction Blocking California Law Restricting Oil and Gas Drilling Near “Sensitive Receptors”

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California denied the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a California law (SB 1137) that prohibits the drilling of new oil and gas wells and the redrilling/deepening of existing wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors.” The court found that the U.S. did not demonstrate that it was likely to establish that SB 1137 is preempted because it conflicts with the Mineral Leasing Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The court also found that the U.S. did not show that risk of irreparable injury was likely or that the requested injunction would prevent such an injury. The court cited the U.S.’s “substantial delay” in filing the lawsuit and the “speculative” nature of the impact the U.S. claimed SB 1137 would have on oil and gas leasing on federal lands. United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-00107 (E.D. Cal.  Mar. 30, 2026) 

Montana Federal Court Upheld Review of Forest Management Project; Climate Impacts Claim Deemed Abandoned

On April 9, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Montana upheld federal defendants’ authorizations for the Clark Fork Face Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project in the Clark Fork River sub-basin and Garnet Mountain Range east of Missoula, Montana. The court found that the defendants complied with the Endangered Species Act in the consideration of potential effects on grizzly bears, Canada lynx, and bull trout; that the consideration of impacts to Canada lynx was sufficient under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); that the defendants properly considered the project’s consistency with big game standards in the Missoula Resource Management Plan; and that the defendants conducted an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts with respect to other projects. The plaintiffs’ complaint included a NEPA claim that the defendants failed to consider the climate impacts of the removal of trees, but the plaintiffs did not address this issue in their summary judgment briefing, and the court deemed the claim abandoned. Center for Biological Diversity v. Carey, No. 9:24-cv-00168 (D. Mont. Apr. 9, 2026)

Federal Court Rejected Claim that NEPA Reviews for Timber Projects Failed to Adequately Consider Cumulative Carbon Emissions 

The federal district court for the District of Columbia rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the U.S. Forest Service’s environmental reviews of three timber projects failed to properly weigh cumulative carbon emissions. The projects were located in Missouri, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Citing the Supreme Court’s clarification in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County regarding the “substantial deference” due to agencies’ decisions in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, the court declined to “second-guess” or “micromanage” choices the Forest Service made in its reviews of the timber projects, including “decisions on which projects are relevant” for a cumulative effects analysis and “how to measure and contextualize the anticipated cumulative effects.” The court found that the environmental review documents, “[r]ead together, … establish that the agency considered the cumulative carbon-emitting effects of the project but concluded that the overall effects would not be negative.” The court also ruled that the setting of annual timber targets was not a discrete final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Chattooga Conservancy v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:24-cv-00518 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2026)

Alaska Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to 2021 Sustainability Strategy for Tongass National Forest

On March 11, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Alaska dismissed a timber industry challenge to the 2021 adoption of the Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy (2021 Strategy) for the Tongass National Forest. The 2021 Strategy pledged to “end large-scale old growth timber sales” and “instead focus management resources to support forest restoration, recreation and resilience, including for climate, wildlife habit and watershed improvement.” The court ruled that the plaintiffs had no legal basis for the claim that the federal defendants failed to comply with the Tongass Timber Reform Act and implemented an ultra vires policy by failing to set a harvest level for timber that did not meet market demand. The court also found that a 2016 plan’s timber sale objectives did not create a legally binding commitment enforceable under the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the 2021 Strategy was an action that required notice and comment rulemaking. On April 2, 2026, the plaintiffs filed notice of their appeal of the dismissal. Alaska Forest Association v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 3:25-cv-00046 (D. Alaska Mar. 12, 2026)

Tennessee Federal Court Declined to Pause Challenge to Natural Gas Plant After TVA Board Authorized Plan to Operate Old Coal Units Alongside Gas Plant

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) request to stay environmental organizations’ lawsuit challenging TVA’s plan to build a new gas-fired power plant after retiring nine coal-fired units at the Kingston Fossil Plant. TVA requested the stay after the TVA board authorized a plant to continue operating the coal-fired units in conjunction with the gas plant and instructed staff to apply for permits to operate both plants alongside each other. The court found that the TVA board’s final decision on the coal-fired units would not affect “the question at the center of this litigation,” which was the TVA’s decision to build the gas plant. The court found no “pressing need” to delay the litigation until a final decision is made regarding the coal-fired units. Appalachian Voices v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No. 3:24-cv-411 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2026)

Washington Federal Court Rejected Citizen Suit Requesting Measures to Address Puget Sound Water Quality

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and intervenor-defendants King County and City of Tacoma in a citizen suit filed in 2021 that asserted that EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to issue total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Puget Sound. Plaintiff Northwest Environmental Advocates alleged that projected increases in nitrogen pollution, combined with climate change, were expected to worsen dissolved oxygen levels in the Sound and that the State of Washington had failed to submit any TMDLs for nitrogen and dissolved oxygen depletion despite evidence of worsening problems. The court found that given the State’s submission of TMDLs in 2022 for Budd Inlet, an inlet to South Puget Sound, and the ongoing implementation of a nutrient reduction plan, the State had not “clearly and unambiguously decided not to submit Puget Sound dissolved oxygen TMDLs” and the court therefore could not conclude that the State had submitted no such TMDLs under the constructive submission doctrine. Northwest Environmental Advocates v. EPA, No. 21-CV-01637 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2026)

D.C. and Maryland Federal Courts Reject Preemption Challenges to Building Decarbonization Laws

On March 25, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Maryland ruled that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) did not preempt the building decarbonization law enacted by Montgomery County, Maryland. The law mandates issuance of new building codes and regulations requiring “all-electric buildings” for new construction and major renovations. The court concluded that EPCA’s preemption provisions did not apply to the County law because the law did not regulate “energy use” at the “point of use.” The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 14.  National Association of Home Builders of the United States v. Montgomery County, No. 8:24-cv-03024 (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2026)

On March 26, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Columbia rejected a preemption challenge to the Clean Energy D.C. Building Code Amendment Act of 2022, which bans use of gas appliances in certain newly constructed or improved buildings. The court concluded that the text, statutory scheme, and history of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act supported a reading of its preemption clause as preempting “only laws that impose additional performance standards for appliances on top of federally established ones.” The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 14. National Association of Home Builders of the United States v. District of Columbia, No. 1:24-cv-02942 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2026)

On March 31, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Maryland granted the Maryland Department of the Environment’s motion to dismiss a preemption challenge to Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) adopted in 2024. The BEPS require covered buildings to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. The plaintiffs challenging the law alleged that the BEPS emissions standards are facially invalid because they penalize gas appliances covered by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The court found that EPCA did not preempt the BEPS because the BEPS “do not ‘refer to’ or have an impermissible ‘connection with’ the ‘energy use’ or ‘energy efficiency’” of consumer or industrial appliances. Maryland Building Industry Association, Inc. v. McIlwain, No. 8:25-cv-00113 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2026, amended April 2, 2026)

U.S. Voluntarily Dismissed Preemption Challenge After California Cities Repealed Building Electrification Laws

On March 23, 2026, the United States voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging two California cities’ building electrification ordinances as preempted. The notice of voluntary dismissal noted that the cities—City of Morgan Hill and City of Petaluma—had adopted ordinances repealing the electrification requirements after the U.S. filed its lawsuit. The notice also indicated that each City’s ordinance repealing the building electrification requirements stated that federal law preempted the requirements. The U.S.’s notice stated that in light of the actions repealing the requirements and “and the Defendants’ bases for taking them,” it was voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice. United States v. City of Morgan Hill, No. 5:26-cv-00056 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026)

D.C. Federal Court Declined to Order Chubb to Include Climate Change-Related Proposal in Proxy Materials but Denied Motion to Dismiss

The federal district court for the District of Columbia denied the nonprofit shareholder representative As You Sow’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the insurer Chubb Limited (Chubb) to include a shareholder proposal in its proxy materials for Chubb’s 2026 annual shareholder meeting. The proposal requested that Chubb “issue a third-party report assessing if and how pursuing subrogation claims for climate-related losses would benefit the Company and its insureds.” The court found that As You Sow failed to show that the proposal fell outside the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule allowing companies to exclude proposals that related to a company’s ordinary business operations. The court found that As You Sow did not articulate why the potentially “acute” threat of climate change was the focus of its proposal and not “day-to-day subrogation decisionmaking.” The court declined, however, to dismiss the case either for failure to properly serve Chubb or for failure to state a claim. The court ordered As You Sow to serve Chubb within 120 days. As You Sow v. Chubb Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-00734 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2026)

Federal Court Rejected Challenge to Air Quality Regulation for Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

The federal district court for the District of Columbia upheld a final rule adopted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in 2020 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to regulate compliance with national ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act to the extent activities authorized under OCSLA “significantly affect the air quality of any state.” The court rejected environmental organizations’ claims that the final rule had kept in place “outdated and ineffective regulations,” rather than adopting significant changes in the 2016 proposed rule. The court found that the organizations sought to expand BOEM’s mandate beyond the “proper statutory mandate.” The court also rejected the organizations’ claims that BOEM’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious, that BOEM failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decisions, and that BOEM failed to consider “important aspects of the problem of offshore oil and gas pollution.” Healthy Gulf v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, No. 1:24-cv-02175 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2026)

Ninth Circuit Reinstated Critical Habitat Designations for Arctic Seals

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court of the District of Alaska order vacating and remanding critical habitat designations for two species of Arctic seals. As a threshold matter, the Ninth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction over Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD’s) appeal, rejecting the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) argument that it lacked jurisdiction over a non-agency litigant’s appeal of a district court remand order. On the merits, the Ninth Circuit concluded that NMFS’s designations were consistent with the Endangered Species Act’s definition of occupied critical habitat, rejecting the State of Alaska’s argument that the statute requires that the entire designated area be “essential” to the species and that NMFS must explain why a smaller protected area would be insufficient. The Ninth Circuit also agreed with CBD that NMFS was not required to account for foreign nation conservation efforts or existence of foreign habitat. The Ninth Circuit also found that NMFS considered relevant factors and provided a reasonable explanation for declining to consider Alaska’s and North Slope Borough’s proposed exclusions of certain coastal areas. In addition, the Ninth Circuit rejected Alaska’s contention that NMFS failed to adequately explain why the designations were “prudent.” Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service, Nos. 24-7276 and 24-7377 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026)

Fish and Wildlife Service Agreed to Schedule for Listing and Critical Habitat Determinations for Florida Reptiles and Plants

On March 19, 2026, the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida adopted a settlement agreement between Center for Biological Diversity and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Secretary of the Interior, and the FWS’s director to resolve a lawsuit filed in 2025 to compel the federal defendants to take final actions under the Endangered Species Act regarding reptiles and plants facing climate change threats. In the settlement agreement, the defendants agreed to a schedule for publishing final listing determinations for three reptiles and for final critical habitat designations for eight South Florida plant species listed in 2016 and 2017 as endangered or threatened. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:25-cv-21190 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2026)

Settlement Required Fish and Wildlife Service Decision on Endangered Species Act Listing for Nevada Toad

On March 18, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Arizona granted a joint motion to enter a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit filed by Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2025 to compel a response to CBD’s 2022 petition requesting that the Railroad Valley toad be listed as threatened or endangered. CBD alleged that the toad—which has an estimated distribution of 445 acres in Nevada—was threatened by oil and gas drilling and by a proposed lithium production project, as well as by other threats, including climate change. In the agreement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to review the status of the Railroad Valley toad and submit a finding for publication by May 31, 2028 as to whether its listing was warranted. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:25-cv-00256 (D. Ariz. Mar. 18, 2026) 

New York Appellate Court Agreed with Landfill Operator that Town Board Failed to Comply with SEQRA When It Adopted Law Compelling Landfill’s Closure

In a lawsuit brought by the owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, the New York Appellate Division affirmed the determination by a trial court that the Town of Seneca Falls Town Board failed to comply with its substantive obligations under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when it enacted a local law prohibiting continued operation of solid waste disposal facilities after the expiration of the landfill’s current permits. The Appellate Division in December 2024 ruled that the owner-operator lacked standing to make SEQRA claims and reversed the trial court, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December 2025. After the Court of Appeals remitted the case for consideration of the merits, the Appellate Division found that the Town Board failed to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, take the required hard look at those concerns, and make a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination. The court rejected the Town respondents’ contention that the Town Board was not obligated to consider the potential increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the landfill’s closure because the owner-operator did not raise the concern and because such a consequence was speculative. The Appellate Division described the Town respondents’ position as “legally and factually flawed.” The court noted that under SEQRA it was the Town Board’s obligation, not the owner-operator’s, to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern and that, in any event, the owner-operator’s air quality expert had “specifically warned” during a hearing that closure “could likely result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as waste may have to be transported a greater distance.” The Appellate Division acknowledged the principle that SEQRA does not require investigation of “every conceivable environmental problem” but agreed with the court below that “the transportation of waste to other locations and the concomitant increase in greenhouse gas emissions by hauling vehicles constituted a nonspeculative impact that could be reasonably expected to result” from the closure, particularly given the landfill’s size. The Appellate Division further found that the record established that the “cursory examination” performed by the Town Board was insufficient to demonstrate a hard look at environmental concerns. Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls, No. CA 23-01878 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 20, 2026)

D.C. Federal Court Returned Greenwashing Case Against JBS USA to D.C. Superior Court

The federal district court for the District of Columbia remanded to D.C. Superior Court the nonprofit organization Mighty Earth’s greenwashing lawsuit against the meat producer JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA). Mighty Earth alleged, among other things, that JBS USA misrepresented its products’ sustainability by advertising a net zero emissions by 2040 goal “without the intention or capability” of achieving the goal. Both JBS USA and Mighty Earth agreed that Mighty Earth lacked Article III standing, but Mighty Earth asserted that it had standing to bring the case in D.C. courts under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which authorizes public interest organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers. JBS USA, which removed the case on diversity jurisdiction grounds, argued that the federal court should dismiss the case for lack of standing. The federal court concluded that it was bound by rulings holding that Article III standing was unnecessary when a case such as this is brought in D.C. court. Because it could not exercise jurisdiction over Mighty Earth’s claims and because the D.C. Superior Court could, the federal district court remanded the action. Mighty Earth v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 25-cv-4138 (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2026)

Connecticut Court Dismissed Environmental Group and Town’s Appeal of Intervention Denial in Application Proceeding for Compressor Station Expansion

A Connecticut Superior Court dismissed the environmental group Save the Sound and the Town of Brookfield’s administrative appeal of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s (CTDEEP’s) denial of their petitions to intervene in Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.’s (Iroquois’s) application to expand its natural gas compressor station in Brookfield. Save the Sound and the Town’s petitions to intervene alleged, among other things, that construction and operation of two additional turbines would increase greenhouse gas emissions and impede Connecticut’s ability to meet the emissions limits established by the Global Warming Solutions Act. The court agreed with CTDEEP and Iroquois that denials of petitions to intervene are not appealable final orders and found that dismissing the administrative appeal would not deprive Save the Sound and the Town of an adequate remedy since they would be able to appeal when CTDEEP issues an order on Iroquois’s application. Save the Sound v. Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, No. HHB-CV-25-6100812-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 12, 2026)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

Additional Petitions for Review Filed to Challenge Endangerment Finding Rescission; Petitioners Ask D.C. Circuit to Defer Call for Briefing Proposals

Two more petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s rescission of the Clean Air Act endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and the repeal of greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standards. One was filed on April 8 by nonprofit organizations and federally recognized Tribes. The other was filed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District on April 16. On April 16 and 20, petitioners filed two requests asking the court to defer the call for merits briefing proposals until EPA addresses four reconsideration petitions that ask EPA to hold a comment period on modeling and other material on which the final rule relied for its conclusion that regulation of vehicle greenhouse gases would be futile. One request asked that the call for briefing proposals be deferred until at least June 4, 2026 or until EPA decides whether to grant the reconsideration petitions. The other request, by the petitioners in the lead proceeding, requested that the court grant a deferral of 90 days (to July 20, 2026), which they indicated could allow EPA to fully resolve the reconsideration petitions. Alaska Institute for Justice v. EPA, No. 26-1083 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 8, 2026); Bay Area Air Quality Management District v. EPA, No. 26-1090 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 16, 2026); American Public Health Association v. EPA, Nos. 26-1037 et al. (D.C. Cir.). 

Lawsuit Filed in Florida Federal Court Said Federal Defendants Failed to Adequately Consider Effects on Endangered Florida Panther

On April 8, 2026, three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida against federal defendants. The plaintiffs challenged a 2025 biological opinion and a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit issued in reliance on the biological opinion for a mixed-use residential and commercial development consisting of approximately 10,264.63 acres in Collier County, Florida (Project). The plaintiffs alleged that the project would destroy 5,000 acres of habitat for the endangered Florida panther. They contended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) determination that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the panther failed to acknowledge was the panther “almost certainly faces jeopardy even without the Project” and also “failed meaningfully to analyze the additive impacts of the action to the panther’s survival and recovery prospects in that context.” Among other things, the complaint alleged that the FWS acknowledged that cumulative effects of climate change such as sea level rise and severe storms could further reduce suitable panther habitat but that the FWS failed to mention climate change in its jeopardy analysis. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the federal defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Administrative Procedure Act, to set aside the biological opinion and Section 404 permit and remand the biological opinion for reinitiation of consultation under the ESA, and to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from approving or taking any action pursuant to a Section 404 permit. Center for Biological Diversity v. Nesvik, No. 2:26-cv-01072 (M.D. Fla., filed Apr. 8, 2026)

United States Filed Preemption Challenge to New Jersey Town’s Building Electrification Ordinance

On March 31, 2026, the United States filed lawsuit against the Township of Morris, New Jersey, asserting that the Township’s 2022 ordinance banning natural gas, propane gas, and fuel oil infrastructure and appliances in certain new apartment complex or apartment-style housing was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The U.S. asked the federal district court for the District of New Jersey to declare that the law is preempted and therefore void and unenforceable and to enjoin defendants from enforcing or attempting to enforce the ordinance. United States v. Township of Morris, No. 2:26-cv-03412 (D.N.J., filed Mar. 31, 2026)

Lawsuit Said 2024 Federal Approval of Sunrise Wind Project Applied Erroneous Interpretation of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenged the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) approvals of the Sunrise Wind offshore wind project. The project is to be located on the Outer Continental Shelf to the south of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs included a Rhode Island nonprofit corporation that describes its core purpose as “protecting ocean biodiversity and health”; commercial and recreational fishermen; a nonprofit “alliance of the wild harvesters of the waters off of New England”; owners of historic oceanfront properties; and federally recognized Tribes. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under OCSLA, the plaintiffs claimed that BOEM approved the project in 2024 based on an erroneous interpretation of OCSLA Section 8(p)(4) that was withdrawn in 2025. The plaintiffs claimed that Section 8(p)(4) imposes mandatory duties on BOEM to ensure that each of its criteria are satisfied without detriment to other criteria rather than allowing BOEM “rationally balance” the Section 8(p)(4) criteria as was done in the 2024 approvals. The complaint alleged that the “rationally balance” interpretation allowed BOEM to approve a project that failed to address national security, environmental, and other issues “because each of those failures could be weighed against the project’s energy benefits and found acceptable.” The plaintiffs asserted that reevaluation based on the 2025 interpretation was required. Under NEPA, the plaintiffs’ arguments included that BOEM failed to justify “foundational” assumptions, including assumptions that the Sunrise Wind project would meaningfully address climate change (an assumption that the complaint alleged was contradicted by the final environmental impact statement) and the assumption in the No Action Alternative that electricity the project would have generated would instead be generated by fossil fuels. The plaintiffs contended that New York and Massachusetts climate change laws impose greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations and that nothing in the record established that New York would rely on fossil fuels rather than on nuclear power or renewable energy sources other than Sunrise Wind. The plaintiffs requested that the court either vacate the 2024 approval or remand for consideration of the project under the OCSLA interpretation adopted in 2025. Green Oceans v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, No. 1:26-cv-01006 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 24, 2026)

Environmental Defense Fund Filed Suit Alleging Department of Energy Officials Failed to Preserve Correspondence Regarding Climate Working Group and Endangerment Finding

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a lawsuit to compel the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Archives and Records Administration to fulfill legal obligations under the Federal Records Act (FRA) to preserve and recover federal records sent or received by DOE officials on their personal emails. EDF alleged that documents produced in response to EDF’s Federal Advisory Committee Act lawsuit regarding the Climate Working Group convened by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright revealed that multiple DOE political appointees “used personal email accounts extensively to conduct government business.” EDF further alleged that the DOE officials had not forwarded those emails to their official email accounts, that the officials had used their personal email accounts for other official business related to the Climate Working Group and EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases without forwarding those emails to their official accounts, and that records that had not been properly preserved were relevant to nine requests that EDF had submitted to DOE under the Freedom of Information Act since January 2025. EDF asked the court to “[d]eclare that the communications sent and received by DOE employees from personal electronic messaging accounts related to the transaction of government business are agency records subject to the FRA,” that “the failure to ensure such messages and communications are preserved … constitute[s] an unlawful removal of federal records in violation of the FRA,” and that the defendants violated their duties under the FRA. EDF also requested injunctive relief. Environmental Defense Fund v. Wright, No. 26-cv-928 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 17, 2026)

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Federal Actions to “Dismantle” National Center for Atmospheric Research

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), the nonprofit research consortium that manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Colorado challenging actions taken by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and individual officials that UCAR alleged are intended to dismantle NCAR, which the complaint described as “a cornerstone of the country’s atmospheric and Earth systems research infrastructure.” The complaint alleged that UCAR and NCAR, headquartered in Boulder, were “collateral damage” in “the federal government’s campaign of retribution” against the State of Colorado for refusing to relinquish its sovereign authority over regulating elections and administering and enforcing its criminal code. The complaint alleged retaliatory measures that included divesting UCAR of its stewardship of the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC), termination of a cooperative agreement between NOAA and UCAR to fund climate adaptation and mitigation research, saddling UCAR and NCAR with “disparate and undue reporting requirements,” imposition of gag orders on UCAR and NCAR officials, and plotting steps with private entities “to strip UCAR and NCAR of their resources, rights, and responsibilities.” The complaint asserted that the defendants’ actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. UCAR alleged that the defendants’ actions posed “a direct threat to America’s national, economic, and public-health security and risks derailing the United States’ global leadership in atmospheric research, weather forecasting, and supercomputing.” On April 3, UCAR filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from divesting UCAR or NCAR of rights, resources, or responsibilities related to NWSC. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research v. National Science Foundation, No. 1:26-cv-01061 (D. Colo., filed Mar. 16, 2026)

United States Filed Lawsuit Asserting that Federal Law Preempted California’s Vehicle CO₂ Emission Standards and Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements

On March 12, 2026, the United States and the U.S. Department of Transportation filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California alleging that the California Air Resources Board’s standards for tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles and requirements for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in manufacturers’ fleets (“ZEV mandates”) are related to fuel economy standards and are therefore preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The complaint alleged that “tailpipe CO₂ emissions and fuel economy are two sides of the coin” because “[r]educing tailpipe CO₂ emissions from current internal combustion automobiles depends upon reducing fuel consumption, and thus, increasing fuel economy.” The complaint also alleged that CARB’s ZEV mandates are related to fuel economy standards because “the purpose is to reduce the fuel consumed by California’s automotive fleet per mile.” In addition, the complaint alleged that the ZEV mandates conflict with EPCA’s provision that the “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards should be set without regard to ZEVs. The U.S. and DOT asked the court for declaratory relief and to enjoin CARB from enforcing the CO₂ standards or ZEV mandates. United States v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:26-cv-00847 (E.D. Cal., filed Mar. 12, 2026)

Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Oregon Climate Protection Program

On April 16, 2026, industry groups, companies, and unions filed a lawsuit in the Oregon Court of Appeals challenging the Oregon Climate Protection Program rule adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). The petitioners alleged that the “massive compliance costs” associated with the program’s “steeply declining caps on critical fuel supplies such as natural gas, propane, gasoline, and diesel” would result in “billions of dollars in higher energy costs for Oregonians.” The petitioners also filed a motion requesting that the court expedite the case to minimize potential economic impacts. In their motion, the petitioners contended that the rule’s structure was “essentially similar” to an earlier iteration that the Court of Appeals invalidated for failing to follow required procedures. The motion contended that the new iteration of the rule failed to address substantive legal flaws, included no protections for Oregonians from increased energy costs, failed to include a specific cost-benefit analysis, and overstepped the EQC’s authority. Oregon Business & Industry v. Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, No. _ (Or. Ct. App., filed Apr. 16, 2026)

Trade Groups Challenged New York’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers filed a lawsuit in a New York Supreme Court challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) regulations establishing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The petitioners assert that adoption of the regulations was arbitrary and capricious, exceeded DEC’s authority, and failed to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements. American Petroleum Institute v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 904092-26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Apr. 9, 2026)

Environmental Organizations Filed Suit to Compel New Mexico to Enforce Oil and Gas Act’s Requirements for Inactive and Unplugged Wells

On March 9, 2026, three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court asserting that the State of New Mexico; the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department; and the Department’s acting secretary were failing to fulfill their obligations under the New Mexico Oil and Gas Act to address “thousands of unplugged, inactive oil and gas wells and unremediated extraction sites littered across the state.” The plaintiffs alleged that the inactive and unplugged wells “emit dangerous air pollutants, contaminate scarce freshwater resources, leak climate-warming gases such as methane, release toxic pollutants onto the land, and create grave risks of explosions and blow-outs that exacerbate harm and add further injury to the environment and those in proximity to these extraction sites.” In addition, the complaint alleged that the wells had imposed “tens of millions of dollars in cleanup costs” on the public, with the cost “projected to balloon into the billions of dollars in the near future.” The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the defendants were out of compliance with their duties under the Oil and Gas Act and to enjoin the defendants to enforce plugging and remediation obligations and to comply with mandatory financial assurance collection and forfeiture provisions of the Oil and Gas Act. The plaintiffs also asked the court to enjoin the expenditure of funds from the Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund to plug, abandon, restore, or remediate wells without forfeiture of the well operators’ financial assurance and enforcement of the operators’ obligations. Center for Biological Diversity v. State, No. D-101-CV-2026-00649 (N.M. Dist. Ct., filed Mar. 9, 2026)