Insights on Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG)

On July 14, a California federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the California Attorney General from enforcing Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), a law regulating recyclability claims on products and packaging.

Businesses often focus on whether a regulation is lawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an inquiry that traditionally turns on whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious. Recent US Supreme Court decisions suggest a different question may come first: whether courts ever reach that analysis at all.

On June 24, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced that it is planning to delay the first-year reporting deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under SB 253 (the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) from August 10 to November 10.

Data centers have a global reach, but their development is increasingly shaped by local land use decisions, public opinion, and evolving legislative frameworks. Across the country, state and local governments are introducing moratoria, revising zoning codes, and responding to community concerns in ways that directly affect project timelines and siting strategies.

The next phase of the Trump Administration’s efforts to end unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices moves forward with the issuance of new Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.222-90.

Rapid changes to US tariff policy have transformed what were once transactional import decisions into issues with enterprise-wide implications. The reliance on tariffs has had bipartisan support across Administrations, and the risks are not going away.

Sustainability reports have become a routine part of corporate disclosures for many US companies, even though no single federal law requires them.

Classes of children are often named as plaintiffs in climate litigation, with complaints stressing the need for judicial intervention to overcome gridlock in the political branches.

In a significant win for the energy industry, the Maryland Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of three municipal lawsuits alleging that energy companies engaged in deceptive practices related to the promotion of fossil fuels.

On April 10, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) agreed to pay more than $17 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by failing to comply with anti-discrimination requirements as set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels have questioned whether investment decisions can or should hinge on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, with courts in Texas a particular hotspot for litigation over these efforts.

Partner J. Michael Showatler was quoted on the US Supreme Court agreeing to hear an appeal on two lawsuits brought by Louisiana localities against Chevron Corp. and other major oil companies.

A recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision on the obligations of European states to study carbon-intensive permitting decisions crystallizes how global climate commitments may be beginning to harden into justiciable standards in some jurisdictions.

The US Supreme Court has declined to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in St. James Parish v. Inclusive Louisiana, leaving intact a unanimous ruling that environmental justice (EJ) organizations have standing to pursue a civil rights challenge to St. James Parish’s land-use practices in Louisiana’s industrial corridor.

This year, the environmental agenda has focused on “deregulation” to promote industrial competitiveness, as well as a sharpened focus on energy generation and transmission to support economic growth.

The climate debate has whipsawed in recent years. Businesses frequently have been caught in the middle, with stakeholders including government regulators, activist investors, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and community groups all pursuing different agendas.

On July 8, the US Supreme Court allowed President Trump’s executive order (EO) permitting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)-related planning efforts for the Trump Administration’s restructuring of the federal workforce to move forward.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — budget reconciliation bill signed into law on July 4 — and a new Executive Order (EO) have clarified that solar and wind generation.

Changes in presidential Administration often mean changes in policy priorities and budgeting, but a Maryland federal district court recently held that the executive branch’s ability to pivot on policy has limits.

“Energy security,” the principle that when you flip a light switch the lights will turn on, is something that most Americans take for granted. But the mechanics behind it incorporate both century-old transmission towers and the latest in renewable energy technology.

For decades, regulators have tried to quantify harm related to emissions, including the “social cost of carbon” (SCC), but that approach has now changed. The Trump Administration recently released a memorandum seeking to discontinue regulatory use of SCC except as required by law.

In recent years, environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and local governments have increasingly sued gas, oil, and energy companies, challenging their historic messaging on climate change, plastic recycling, and fossil fuels effects.

On April 22, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to begin to unwind “disparate impact” regulations that were established under federal civil rights laws. In the environmental context, the EO likely represents the functional end of some Biden Administration environmental justice (EJ) efforts.

President Trump’s energy-focused ambitions will generate work for regulators at all levels of the government.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning a major reorganization of the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) that includes consolidating several sections within the division into other DOJ divisions, as well as eliminating field offices.