Library Search

Amicus brief asks SCOTUS to keep the Line 5 shutdown suit in state court

Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen issues statement

El supremo anula método de 50 años de antigüedad para la aprobación gubernamental de proyectos potencialmente dañinos

We will continue standing up for the principle that the government must consider predictable environmental harms before it acts.

Court sweeps aside 50-year-old method for government approvals of potentially harmful projects

Comisión Federal Reguladora de Energía permitió, contrario a la ley, la expansión del terminal de gas metano en la Bahía de San Juan en manos de NFEnergía, sin consultar a las comunidades locales y sin la revisión requerida.

FERC unlawfully allowed methane gas company NFEnergía to expand its terminal infrastructure in the San Juan Bay without consulting local communities and without the required review

The EPA’s Legacy CCR Surface Impoundment Rule extends safeguards to hundreds of coal ash dump sites that had been left unregulated

Amici from broad and varied interests will help Supreme Court understand the legal and practical consequences of undoing lower court ruling

Environmental and public health groups defending the nation’s landmark environmental law

Environmental and public health groups defended the National Environmental Policy Act in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case challenging the law’s scope.

What you need to know about Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and how the Court’s ruling jeopardizes the government’s ability to regulate

The case could significantly affect how federal courts review federal regulations

A lawyer analyzes the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Fifth Circuit to Determine How Community Groups Can Seek Civil Penalties for Unlawful Emissions

A decision is likely in early 2023.

Earthjustice’s director of strategic legal advocacy reflects on the courts’ conservative shift and what’s really at stake in Sackett v. EPA.

Kirti Datla, Director of Strategic Legal Advocacy, Earthjustice: “The fact that the court went out of its way to take up this challenge to EPA’s authority means that it seems interested in limiting the Biden-Harris administration’s ability to address climate and environmental issues.”