In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court finding that adding fluoride to drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) presented an unreasonable risk to human health, and remanded the issue of standing.

A district court granted in part and denied in part environmental groups' motion for summary judgment in a challenge to BLM's approval of a logging project in western Oregon.

Our May-June issue examines NEPA in light of Seven County, and how the statute's history shows that the price of speed cannot be framed in economic terms alone. We also look at PFAS and the government contractor defense, examining whether manufacturers shared adequate information regarding the hazards of PFAS with their purchasers (and regulators) and delivering insights gained from decades of PFAS litigation in the United States and abroad. Also included is an update on environmental developments in China, a loosely edited transcript of a recent ELI webinar on building science into the management of technology, and more! 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County reorients NEPA’s scope, curtailing cumulative effects analysis by redefining it through a jurisdictional lens. For fossil fuel infrastructure projects where the most significant environmental impacts occur upstream or downstream from the infrastructure itself, Seven County severely constrains climate change-related impact analysis.