Environmental Litigation

NEPA and Environmental Review Litigation

We litigate claims arising from federal and state agency environmental reviews.

• We represented Eagle County, Colorado, at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in challenging the Surface Transportation Board’s approval of the new 88-mile Uinta Basin Railway under NEPA, NHPA, and ESA. The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur.
• We represented the City of Los Angeles in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging new FAA flight procedures over the City. The court agreed that the FAA should have conducted an environmental review first. We then obtained a writ of mandamus compelling the agency to comply. City of Los Angeles v. Dickson, No. 19-71591 (9th Cir. 2021).
• Our team challenged Army Corps of Engineers projects on Virginia’s James River under NEPA and NHPA Section 110(f). It was the first successful Section 110(f) claim in the statute’s history. National Parks Conservation Association v. Semonite, 916 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
• We represented the City of Albuquerque in defending federal approval of its Route 66 bus rapid transit project. We defeated NEPA and NHPA claims and emergency injunction requests in the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Coalition to Make Art Smart v. Federal Transit Administration (D.N.M. July 29, 2016), aff’d 843 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2016).
• We successfully defended a 315-megawatt wind project on federal land against challenges under NEPA, CEQA, NHPA, and other statutes. Quechan Tribe v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 927 F. Supp. 2d 921 (S.D. Cal. 2013), aff’d 673 F. App’x 709 (9th Cir. 2016).
• We prevailed in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding. The City quickly sold a road segment to a private buyer that provided access to the Tribe’s planned $600 million casino resort. The Shasta County Superior Court found the sale violated CEQA, the Surplus Land Act, and City procedures.

Natural Resources and Water Litigation

We handle high-stakes natural resources litigation, including contentious disputes over western water resources.

• We represented the joint powers agency overseeing the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. The work spanned multiple federal and state cases under NEPA, ESA, federal Reclamation law, CEQA, and federal contract law. The disputes arose from long-term joint operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project.
• We represent one of California’s largest water storage districts in a multi-party land subsidence dispute and in matters under SGMA. The damage in the litigation affected a 152-mile aqueduct serving agricultural operations worth $10 billion per year. 
• We represented the project developer of a temporary art installation on BLM land in Colorado. We defended the state and federal permit reviews in parallel proceedings under FLPMA and NEPA. Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. BLM, (D. Colo. 2015); Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. Colo. Parks & Wildlife Bd., 360 P.3d 186 (Colo. App. 2015).
• We litigated CWA claims arising from Army Corps of Engineers permitting decisions for water projects. Georgia River Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 517 F. App’x 699 (11th Cir. 2013).

Hazardous Waste and Emerging Contaminants Litigation

We litigate disputes under federal and state hazardous and solid waste laws, including cost recovery suits. We also help clients defend matters involving emerging contaminants such as PFAS, perchlorate, hexavalent chromium, 1,2,3-TCP, and 1,4-dioxane.

• We represented the California Attorney General’s Office, on behalf of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, in four RCRA and CERCLA lawsuits. The cases involved hazardous waste disposal facilities, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.
• We represented San Bernardino County and other parties in major CERCLA cost recovery litigation over emerging and other contaminants. The settlement secured precedent-setting contribution protections over the objections of non-settling parties.
• We represented multiple state agencies in state court litigation over the Leviathan Mine Superfund site. After winning key motions, we negotiated a favorable settlement shortly after the jury trial began.

Clean Air and Climate Litigation

We have represented municipalities and public interest organizations on air quality, environmental justice, and climate change.

• We represented an environmental organization defending Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional cap-and-invest program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase investments in Pennsylvania’s clean energy future.
• We represented a national public interest group addressing foundry air pollution in a San Francisco Bay Area environmental justice community. The resulting settlement improved the local air district’s rules on community engagement, transparency, and enforcement.
• We represented several public interest organizations in a series of lawsuits defeating challenges to Colorado’s oil and gas emission rules.
• We represented a coalition of national and local public interest organizations in defeating a challenge to Colorado’s zero-emission vehicle sales rule.
• We represented a coalition of environmental organizations in successfully defending Colorado’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan in state court. Colorado Mining Association v. Urbina, 318 P.3d 562 (Colo. App. 2013).

Amicus Briefs on Emerging Environmental Issues

Beyond our own cases, we file amicus briefs that give courts our clients’ perspectives on emerging environmental questions, including:

• The requirement to analyze downstream greenhouse gas impacts for the largest offshore oil lease sale in U.S. history. Friends of the Earth v. Haaland, Nos. 22-5036, 22-5037 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
• EPA’s authority to limit the use of scientific data in environmental rulemaking. Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, No. 4:21-cv-00003 (D. Mont. 2021).
• Jurisdiction over state law claims for damages related to fossil fuel sales. Boulder County v. Suncor, 965 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2020).
• Presidential authority to designate a marine national monument. Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, 945 F.3d 535 (D.C. Cir. 2019).