The Eighth Circuit granted farming groups' petitions to review EPA's 2021 order banning agricultural use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos. The groups argued EPA's "rushed" decision to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, in response to a Ninth Circuit order directing the Agency to either revoke all tolerances or modify them if they could certify that they were safe within 60 days, was arbitrary and capricious. The court found EPA's decision to rule out the option to modify, leaving revocation by default, was arbitrary and capricious because the Agency had the authority to revoke some tolerances and modify others; the court-imposed deadline was "no excuse for zeroing in on a single solution to the exclusion of others." The court granted the petitions for review, vacated the revocation order, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit, 2-1, affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment for agricultural producers and businesses and a permanent injunction enjoining the California attorney general (AG) from enforcing Proposition 65's carcinogen warning requirement for the herbicide glyphosate. Plaintiffs argued the warning violated their right to be free from compelled speech. The district court found the warning violated the First Amendment as applied to glyphosate and permanently enjoined the AG from enforcing it. The appellate court held the warning requirement as applied to glyphosate was unconstitutional because none of the proposed warnings were narrowly drawn to advance California's interest in protecting consumers from carcinogens, and the state had less burdensome ways to convey its message than to compel plaintiffs to do it for them. It affirmed summary judgment and the permanent injunction.

A district court dismissed environmental groups' challenge to BLM's approval of a 600-million-barrel oil development project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The groups first argued BLM violated NEPA by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and by failing to adequately analyze global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from future oil development on adjacent lands. The court found the alternatives analysis complied with NEPA, and that the final EIS appropriately analyzed indirect and cumulative GHG emissions. The groups next argued BLM violated §810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act by failing to consider alternatives that would reduce impacts to subsistence uses. The court found it was appropriate for BLM to consider only action alternatives that would result in full field development and to conduct its §810 analysis based on those alternatives. The groups also argued FWS erred in finding in its biological opinion (BiOp) that there would be no incidental take of polar bears, that BLM unlawfully relied on the BiOp, and that it failed to consult with FWS and NMFS regarding effects of carbon emissions on protected species. The court concluded the BiOp was not arbitrary and capricious in its incidental take analysis, that BLM's reliance on it did not violate ESA §7, and that BLM applied the correct standard when it determined the impact of GHG emissions on listed species was not an effect of the project. The court dismissed the suit.

A district court denied fishing groups' motion to remand a climate liability lawsuit against oil and gas companies. The groups initially sued in state court, seeking damages for lost fishing opportunities allegedly caused by climate change. The companies removed the suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and the groups moved to remand. The court found CAFA removal was proper because the suit was a §382 action seeking damages for injuries suffered by absent fishermen and fishing businesses up and down the West Coast. It denied the motion.

A district court denied environmental groups' motion to preliminarily enjoin an oil drilling project in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. The groups argued DOI's initial approval of the project violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" at relevant environmental issues, violated FLPMA by failing to protect greater sage-grouse and prevent undue degradation to raptors and their habitats, and violated the Mineral Leasing Act and FLPMA by failing to mitigate certain air pollutants. The court found the groups did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any of their claims, and failed to demonstrate that they would suffer imminent and irreparable harm absent an injunction. It denied the groups' motion, and granted intervenors' motion to dismiss.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ's) order granting a PSD permit for a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Texas. An environmental group petitioned for review, arguing TCEQ erred by not imposing the same emissions limits for carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides on the proposed facility that it previously imposed on another recently approved LNG facility. The court found TCEQ's order departed from the Commission's policy of adhering to earlier permit limits, and that the Commission failed to adequately explain why it did so. It vacated the order and remanded to TCEQ for further proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed intervening environmental groups' challenge to a district court order requiring the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to hold an oil and gas lease sale on the outer continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. The state of Louisiana and oil companies initially sued BOEM and sought a preliminary injunction, arguing the Bureau violated the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) by changing the sale terms one month before the deadline, removing six million acres and restricting vessel activity to protect the endangered Rice's whale. The district court granted the injunction, set aside the changed terms as unlawful, and ordered BOEM to hold the sale before the IRA's September 30, 2023, deadline. Four environmental groups intervened to challenge the injunction. But the court found the "chain of events" needed to show that the activities resulting from the sale without the changed terms could harm one of the whales and diminish a group member's recreational or aesthetic interests was so attenuated that the alleged harm was not "certainly impending." It dismissed the groups' challenge for lack of standing, and amended the preliminary injunction by extending the deadline for conducting the sale to December 20, 2023.

A district court denied the city of New Orleans' motion to remand to state court its lawsuit against oil companies for allegedly damaging coastal wetlands with their operations. The city initially sued the companies in state court, arguing they violated the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act by failing to contain their operations within permitted bounds or failing to secure a coastal use permit when required, causing damage to the city's coastal lands. The companies removed the suit to federal court on federal jurisdiction grounds, and the city moved to remand. The court found federal diversity jurisdiction was proper because the only defendant based in Louisiana was improperly joined, and denied the city's motion.

The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed a lower court order denying oil and gas companies' motions to dismiss a climate misinformation suit brought by the city and county of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. Plaintiffs argued the companies knowingly misled the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels, bringing five state tort law claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The companies moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The lower court denied both motions. On appeal, the companies argued the court lacked specific jurisdiction over them; that the claims were preempted by federal common law, which in turn was displaced by the CAA; and alternatively, that the claims were preempted by the CAA. The high court concluded the companies were subject to specific jurisdiction in Hawaii because plaintiffs' allegations arose out of or were related to the companies' sale and marketing of fossil fuel products in Hawaii; the CAA's displacement of federal common law governing interstate pollution damage suits meant that federal common law did not preempt state law; and that the CAA did not preempt the claims. It affirmed the lower court's orders denying the motions to dismiss.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the operator of a chemical storage facility in a lawsuit concerning the operator's 2019 oil spill into the Houston Ship Channel. Shipping companies that were forced to stop operations after the spill sued the operator, seeking economic loss damages under OPA. A district court granted summary judgment for the operator, holding that the spill, which contained a mix of oil and hazardous substances, was not "oil" as defined by OPA. The appellate court held the shipping companies could not bring economic loss claims under OPA because the mixed spill was covered under CERCLA. It affirmed summary judgment for the operator.