A district court granted the Trump Administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 22 youths challenging three executive orders (EOs) signed by the president. Plaintiffs argued that EOs 14154, 14156, and 14261 violated their due process rights to life and liberty, that EPA's implementation of the EOs to "unleash" fossil fuel pollution and debilitate EPA was ultra vires, that termination of the National Climate Assessment and the Administration's "wholesale suppression of climate science" were ultra vires, and that the challenged actions were unconstitutional under the state-created danger doctrine. The Administration moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court found that while plaintiffs had presented "overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, ... that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," and implementation of the EOs would increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and exacerbate the harms experienced by plaintiffs, their "compelling" case for redress—that the court revert to the regulatory framework that existed on January 19, 2025—must be made to the political branches or to the electorate. It dismissed the suit for lack of redressability and standing.

The D.C. Circuit denied environmental groups' challenge to FERC's approval of a pipeline to supply natural gas to the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) new turbine to replace a coal-fired power unit. The groups argued FERC's calculation of downstream greenhouse gas emissions, its discussion of the no-action alternative, and its decision not to analyze the pipeline and TVA's plant together as connected actions violated NEPA. The court found FERC did not err when it considered both retirement of the coal-powered unit and the emissions from the new gas turbine as effects of the pipeline for its downstream emissions analysis; that FERC reasonably assumed in its no-action analysis that the turbine would be built even if the pipeline were rejected; and that the connected-action requirement did not apply because after Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), agencies are no longer “required to analyze the effects of projects over which they do not exercise regulatory authority,” and FERC lacked jurisdiction over the power plant. The groups also argued FERC's approval violated the Natural Gas Act (NGA), but the court found the Commission's analysis of market need for the pipeline and the public interest complied with the NGA. It denied the petitions for review.

A district court granted EPA's motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to compel agency action regarding regulation of sewage sludge under the CWA. Texas farmers and ranchers sued EPA, arguing the Agency failed to identify 18 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as present in sewage sludge and to regulate a set of 11 PFAS listed in its earlier biennial reports. They also argued the Agency's failure to include the 18 PFAS in its latest biennial report was arbitrary and capricious and that its failure to regulate certain PFAS constituted an unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action. The court found that while the plain language of the CWA imposed a nondiscretionary duty on EPA to review its regulations on a biennial basis, it did not mandate that the Agency identify and regulate sewage sludge pollutants with the same time frame. It also found that neither the biennial report nor EPA's failure to list pollutants in the report constituted final agency action subject to review. It granted EPA's motion to dismiss.

A district court denied summary judgment for the Navy in a CWA citizen suit concerning the release of fuel into bodies of freshwater on the island of Oahu. Environmental groups sued, arguing the Navy's operation of a bulk fuel storage facility had and would continue to discharge pollutants from point sources into waters of the United States without the required permits. The Navy moved for summary judgment, arguing the groups had not identified evidence that there was an ongoing discharge or that the Navy had failed to remedy releases while the suit was pending. The court found there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether prior intermittent discharges at the facility were reasonably likely to recur. It denied the motion.

A district court granted the state of Maine's motion to remand to state court a climate liability lawsuit brought against 14 fossil fuel companies. The state argued the companies violated Maine law by knowingly deceiving the public about climate change. One of the companies removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, citing various activities it allegedly carried out under federal direction. Maine moved to remand, arguing the removal statute did not apply. The court found the company failed to establish the required nexus between misconduct alleged by the state and the activities the company claimed to have carried out under federal jurisdiction. It granted the state's motion to remand.

A district court granted summary judgment for environmental groups in a challenge to FWS' 2022 ESA rule affirming a 2013 rule that listed the streaked horned lark as a threatened species and expanding the 2013 §4(d) rule's exception for agricultural activities to all of the lark's range. The groups argued FWS made arbitrary findings as to the lark's listing status both throughout its range and in significant portions of its range, and failed to further conservation of the species due to its failure to extend §9 take prohibitions to agricultural activities. The court found FWS' failure to consider the impact that small population size presently has on lark population and its chosen resiliency parameters around population numbers and trends were arbitrary and capricious, and that there appeared to be no evidence supporting expansion of the §4(d) exception. It remanded to FWS to complete a new listing determination within one year, vacated the revised §4(d) rule, and reinstated the 2013 §4(d) rule pending the new listing determination.

A district court denied summary judgment for environmental groups in a lawsuit concerning a high-voltage transmission line project across Iowa and Wisconsin and through the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The groups argued a land exchange agreement between FWS and two utility companies that granted the companies fee ownership over land within the refuge violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge Act), the refuge's comprehensive conservation plan, and NEPA. The project was completed in 2024, and the groups sought to compel removal of the portion of the transmission line that now runs through the refuge. The court was sympathetic to the groups' arguments that FWS and the companies exploited a loophole in the Refuge Act that allowed completion of the project without FWS determining that it was compatible with the refuge and without more rigorous environmental review, but concluded they failed to show either the companies or the Service violated any laws. It denied the groups' motion and granted summary judgment for FWS and the companies.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for five coastal states and two industry groups in a challenge to two memoranda issued by President Biden withdrawing certain areas of the outer continental shelf from potential oil and gas leasing "for a period of time without specific expiration." The states argued the memoranda were unlawful because §12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and violated both separation of powers and the Property Clause. The groups argued the memoranda were unlawful because they exceeded the scope of the president's authority under §12(a). The court found that to the extent the memoranda were supposed to overcome the power of subsequent executives to revoke or modify their withdrawals, they constituted a departure from the executive branch's long-standing practice and exceeded the authority granted by §12(a). It granted summary judgment for plaintiffs to the effect that the memoranda are declared unlawful for exceeding the authority granted under OCSLA.

A district court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for an environmental group in a challenge to FEMA-approved projects to rebuild Puerto Rico's electrical grid following hurricane damage. The group argued FEMA violated NEPA by failing to consider distributed renewable energy alternatives, failing to engage with public comments proposing alternatives, failing to adequately examine harms associated with rebuilding the fossil fuel grid, relying on undefined mitigation measures or promises of future tiering in lieu of a "hard look" at environmental impacts, not preparing an EIS for the proposed projects, and failing to undertake additional review in light of significant new information undermining the decision. The court found the record established that the projects covered by the utility repair, replacement, and realignment EA could significantly affect the human environment and that FEMA's contrary conclusion violated NEPA, but that the EA concerning public facilities infrastructure recovery and resiliency adequately identified potential environmental impacts and provided sufficient information about mitigation measures to counteract such impacts. It remanded to FEMA to prepare an EIS in relation to the utilities EA.

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Forest Service in a challenge to its approval of a project to cut down trees burned by wildfires on national forest land in 2020 and 2021. Environmental groups argued the Service violated NEPA when it approved the project. A district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the Service. The appellate court found the Service analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives in the project's EAs and took a "hard look" at likely impacts on wildlife, including the northern spotted owl, cumulative effects, and likely impacts on rivers protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It affirmed summary judgment for the Service.