One Person’s Dreamscape is Another’s Nightmare 

We’re in an age when deregulation hawks in just about every sector are getting what they’ve asked for. That includes environmental protection, something many of us have taken for granted, as we watch federal measures undergo a dramatic unwinding at a time when the scientific community agrees more should be done, not less, to safeguard the planet. 

Federal agencies are retreating from aggressive enforcement, states are asserting new authority, and courts—both state and federal—are emerging as decisive arbiters of climate and energy policy. The result is a patchwork of obligations and opportunities that lawyers, corporations, and communities must navigate with increasing urgency. 

This week’s developments underscore the trend: state legislatures advancing environmental justice mandates, the EPA signaling a softer enforcement posture, the Supreme Court preparing to hear cases that could redefine regulatory authority, communities winning climate litigation against fossil fuel companies, and a federal judge clearing the way for offshore wind projects off Massachusetts. Together, these stories reveal a system in flux, where power is shifting away from Washington and toward states and courts. 

Feds Retreat, States Surge in Enviro Justice 

With federal agencies scaling back, states are filling the void. E&E News reported that “states are increasingly stepping up to integrate environmental justice into permitting and enforcement decisions.” New York now requires cumulative impact assessments before permits are issued, while California has expanded mandates for community participation. Connecticut and Maine have followed suit, obligating agencies to weigh disproportionate impacts on low‑income and minority communities. 

Grassroots pressure has been decisive. The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators explained that lawmakers are “responding to decades of inequitable exposure to pollution by embedding EJ into statutory frameworks.” Yet industry groups warn the rules could stall development. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued cumulative impact assessments “impose burdensome requirements and create uncertainty in permitting processes.” 

Why it matters: Compliance obligations now vary dramatically across jurisdictions. For national corporations, attorneys must navigate a patchwork of state mandates, anticipating litigation risks and tailoring strategies to each regulatory climate. 

EPA Enforcement Under Scrutiny 

The EPA’s December memorandum has unsettled its own staff. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance directed personnel to prioritize “compliance first.” Craig Pritzlaff, acting assistant administrator, told E&E News the memo “reinforces a ‘compliance first’ orientation as the guiding principle.” 

Industry welcomed the shift. The National Law Review highlighted six guiding factors, including voluntary self‑audits and coordination with states. Holland & Knight described the memo as “an enforcement policy shift that emphasizes swift resolution and compliance… over prolonged investigations.” 

But critics see a retreat. One EPA staffer warned, “This will stop all meaningful cases in their tracks.” NGOs point to continued aggressive enforcement under the Toxic Substances Control Act, where citizen suits remain active. Meanwhile, Reuters reported EPA may delay Biden‑era vehicle pollution rules, reinforcing perceptions of uneven enforcement. 

Why it matters: Attorneys must advise clients to seize compliance assistance opportunities while preparing targeted enforcement in sectors where NGOs and statutory mandates keep pressure high. 

Supreme Court Environmental Docket 

The Supreme Court’s October 2025 term is stacked with environmental cases. SCOTUSblog reported six major disputes, including challenges to EPA’s greenhouse gas authority and state water quality standards. Legal scholars told Bloomberg Law the Court’s rulings “could reshape doctrines on federal authority and redefine the balance between state and federal power.” 

Chevron deference is also on the line. Several cases question whether agencies should retain broad interpretive authority. A narrowing—or overturning—of Chevron would force EPA to justify regulations more rigorously, opening new avenues for litigation. 

Why it matters: These cases could reset the regulatory landscape for decades. Attorneys must prepare clients for precedent shifts that affect permitting, enforcement, and liability. 

Court Victories for Climate Advocates 

Climate advocates scored wins in 2025. A federal appeals court allowed municipalities’ damages claims against oil companies to proceed. Inside Climate News called it “a major victory for communities seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts.” 

Other rulings blocked pipeline approvals and challenged fossil fuel subsidies. Courts increasingly recognize standing for communities facing climate harms, signaling judicial willingness to engage with climate science. Industry groups, however, warn of costly litigation. The American Petroleum Institute argued, “Climate policy should be set by legislatures, not courts.” 

Why it matters: Litigation is becoming a central tool of climate governance. Attorneys must anticipate expanded liability for fossil fuel companies and prepare municipalities and NGOs to use courts as policy drivers. 

Offshore Wind Pause Overturned 

In Massachusetts, a federal judge struck down the Trump Administration’s pause on offshore wind projects, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” The Boston Globe reported the ruling “clears the way for developers to resume planning and permitting for offshore wind farms off the Massachusetts coast.” 

The case, brought by renewable energy companies and environmental groups, argued the pause violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge agreed, finding no rational basis for halting projects. Fishing groups remain wary, but clean energy advocates hailed the decision as a milestone for offshore wind. 

Why it matters: The ruling accelerates clean energy deployment and underscores judicial checks on executive power. Attorneys advising developers or coastal stakeholders must prepare for renewed permitting activity and potential conflicts with fishing interests. 

The Takeaway 

This week’s environmental law stories reveal a landscape defined by state assertiveness, judicial activism, and federal uncertainty. From state‑led EJ initiatives to Supreme Court cases that could reshape regulatory authority, the terrain is shifting rapidly. For practitioners, the message is clear: environmental law is no longer defined solely by federal agencies. Courts and states are taking the wheel, and attorneys must adapt strategies accordingly. If we elect to see a silver lining, it is that states and courts still have considerable power, but they are under attack. So, maybe we have a slightly tarnished silver lining.