The U.S. Supreme Court, 7-2, held that FIFRA expressly preempted a glyphosate pesticide user's state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require the company that manufactures and distributes the pesticide to add a cancer warning to its products' label.

The Tenth Circuit, 2-1, affirmed in part and vacated in part dismissal of a challenge to President Biden's expansion of two national monuments in Utah.

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.