Key Takeaways

• Fewer Environmental Cases But Big Developments. Although environmental cases were not the central focus of the Supreme Court’s merits docket during its October Term 2025 (covering 2025-26), the Court’s decisions addressed issues at the foundation of environmental law: federalism, separation of powers, and limits on agency authority.
• State-Law Claims Remain a Major Battleground. Several of the Court’s decisions in the past Term addressed when businesses can move state-court cases into federal court and when federal law preempts state-law claims. Key environmental, energy, and climate issues are increasingly litigated under state-law theories.
• Presidential Control and Agency Enforcement Are Now Core Business Issues. The Court’s separation-of-powers and agency-enforcement cases have significant implications for businesses, determining leadership of key agencies and defining the limits of agency enforcement powers.
• An Environmental October Term 2026 (2026-27). Next Term, the Court will continue to answer constitutional and procedural questions, but it will also hear environmental cases involving the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and climate change litigation.

Looking Back: Cases From the 2025-2026 Term

Federalism

State court litigation is an increasingly important dimension of environmental law, as plaintiffs seek to bring tort and other claims against businesses. In response, defendants increasingly seek to remove these cases to federal court and argue that preemption bars state-law claims. These litigation trends led to four decisions addressing preemption and removal to federal court.

Preemption

1. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, the Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim when the claim would require a warning that the EPA has not required. This case is highly relevant to pesticide registrants and stakeholders throughout the agricultural supply chain because the ruling reduces litigation risk tied to FIFRA-approved labels. For more information regarding the impacts of this case, see our alert here.

2. In Hencely v. Fluor Corp., No. 24-924, the Court held that state tort claims against military contractors are not preempted when the conduct at issue violated both the contract and military orders. Entities performing work for federal agencies, military installations, government-owned facilities, or federally directed projects should ensure compliance with environmental contract obligations, regulatory requirements, and field practices. Deviations from government instructions may narrow immunity defenses in later tort, exposure, contamination, or workplace-safety litigation.

Removal Jurisdiction

3. In Chevron USA, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, No. 24-813, the Court held that the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442) permits a company, sued for production subject to a government contract, to remove its case to federal court even when the contract directed the manner of production. The Court reasoned that the statute’s use of “relating to,” which permits removal “for or relating to any act under color of such office,” is broad and therefore only requires a close and non-tenuous connection. This broad reading makes the federal officer removal statute an important jurisdictional tool for energy producers, federal contractors, infrastructure operators, and environmental service providers that operate under federal contracts or participate in federal programs.

4. In Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, No. 24-783, the Court held that the 30-day removal deadline for civil cases (28 U.S.C. § 1446) may not be tolled, reasoning that the statute’s text provides an explicit list of codified exceptions. This decision underscores the need for immediate removal analysis when a case is filed in state court. Entities facing environmental litigation should promptly engage litigation counsel, as a missed removal deadline may permanently foreclose a federal forum.

Separation of Powers

The Trump administration’s substantial changes in agency leadership have led to extensive litigation over the scope of the President’s power to remove federal officers. Two of these cases came before the Court in the past Term.

In Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, the Court held that it is unconstitutional for Congress to grant for-cause removal protections to principal officers in executive agencies, overruling (what remained of) the Court’s holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). The Court also addressed presidential removal authority in Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312, in which it denied an application for stay of a lower court’s preliminary injunction, thereby preventing the President from removing a member of the Federal Reserve Board before her term expired. Together, these cases indicate that the President may remove any principal officer in an executive agency, but the Court has left open the extent of that removal power for officers whose authorities are not “within the heartland of executive power,” such as the judges of non-Article III Courts like the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims. Entities that engage with executive agencies should pay attention to how agencies implement these decisions because expanded presidential control over agency leadership could increase policy fluctuation between administrations, affecting project approvals, enforcement priorities, and settlement posture.

One notable area in which the Court did not issue significant rulings this past Term involved the Trump administration’s extensive cancellations of grants and contracts and its decisions not to expend appropriated funds. These issues can have significant implications for expenditures related to environmental and energy matters. During the previous Term, the Court issued decisions in emergency application cases finding that challenges to individual grant terminations had to be resolved in the Court of Federal Claims, while broad challenges to agency policy could remain in federal district court. See Department of Education v. California; National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association. The Court also ruled in September 2025 that plaintiffs could not secure an order compelling the Administration to spend certain appropriated foreign assistance funds. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Litigation over grant and contract cancellations remains pending in multiple federal courts, and it may reach the Court in future Terms.

Limits on Agency Authority

This Term, as in previous Terms, the Court continued to define the scope of limits on agency authority in enforcement proceedings.

The Court previously held that the Seventh Amendment applied to administrative actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking civil penalties for securities fraud. See SEC v. Jarkesy. But in Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406, the Court declined to extend that holding, instead finding that FCC forfeiture orders under the Communications Act of 1934 do not violate the Seventh Amendment. The Court reached this conclusion because the defendant was entitled to a jury trial before the FCC could implement its order. This decision may affect the implementation of other regulatory programs that rely on administrative enforcement mechanisms and agency-imposed penalties.

In Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466, the Court held that the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement without showing that investors suffered financial harm. Which remedies agencies can pursue has come before the Court repeatedly in recent years, and profit-based remedies and theories, such as disgorgement, can arise in various forms of regulatory enforcement. Corporations should expect regulators to continue pursuing remedies tied to alleged wrongful gains even where direct financial harm is difficult to prove.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize presidential tariffs, reasoning that Congress did not delegate its Article I taxing authority through IEEPA. Three of the Justices in the majority based this ruling on the major questions doctrine, which was also the basis of the Court’s rejection of the Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA. The major questions doctrine may continue to constrain executive branch authority in the environmental context. Moreover, tariffs can affect supply chains for solar panels, batteries, pollution-control equipment, and other project inputs. By clarifying the limits of unilateral tariff authority, this ruling may reduce some uncertainty for global supply chains.

In Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, No. 25-95, the Court held that the auction sale price, rather than the fair market value, is sufficient as “just compensation,” following a tax sale, relying on the fact that tax sales have been carried out in this manner for hundreds of years. The Takings Clause is often invoked in land-use, zoning, redevelopment, and natural-resource disputes. This case indicates that, in interpreting the Clause, the modern Court gives considerable weight to historical interactions between property rights and government actions.

Looking Forward: Cases From the 2026-2027 Term

In Suncor Energy, Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170, the Court will consider “[w]hether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The Court also asked the litigants to address whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. As discussed in a previous alert, this is one of the most significant environmental cases on the Court’s docket because it could determine the extent to which state tort law remains available as a vehicle for climate-related damages claims. The outcome could reshape climate litigation nationwide.

In Dept. of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, No. 25-579, the Court will consider whether a federal agency’s submission of a RCRA permit-renewal application to a state or territorial regulator is a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and whether NEPA review is required before such a submission. The Ninth Circuit held that a permit-renewal application is a final agency action and that NEPA applies. If affirmed, the decision would increase procedural obligations for agencies and expose the federal government to judicial challenges whenever an agency seeks to renew a RCRA permit. As noted in our previous alert, the case could significantly affect how the APA and NEPA, which apply across the executive branch, interact with more targeted statutes, like RCRA.

In Dept. of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, No. 25-966, the Court will decide “whether Article III of the Constitution precludes the Department of Labor from adjudicating proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who have allegedly violated the terms and conditions of employment,” for H-2A and corresponding domestic workers. Although the dispute arises in the labor context, the decision could have broader implications for agency adjudication. Placing limits on agencies’ abilities to collect monetary remedies could affect enforcement models across federal regulatory programs, including environmental, workplace-safety, energy, and natural-resource regimes.

In Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, No. 25-352, the Court will consider whether a defendant may raise an “affirmative defense as the basis for a summary judgment motion,” even when the defense was not pleaded in the answer or an amended answer, and whether “a defendant [may] do so even if an amendment adding that affirmative defense would be barred by Rule 16(b)(4).” The Eleventh Circuit allowed such a defense when there was no prejudice to the plaintiff. A decision in this case may influence how strictly courts enforce pleading rules in high-stakes environmental disputes.

B&D’s nationwide litigation practice spans federal and state trial and appellate courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to some of the nation’s largest municipalities rely on us to handle novel, complex matters critical to their operations. Since 2012, B&D has appeared in more than 200 appellate cases across all 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and in state appellate courts across the U.S. Among other significant victories, the firm’s lawyers secured a landmark Clean Water Act ruling from the Court last Term in City & County of San Francisco v. EPA, 604 U.S. 334 (2025).