Fifth Circuit Limits EPA’s Attempts to Regulate PFAS Under Toxic Substances Control Act in Inhance Technologies v. EPA
On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) orders under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), holding that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority when it issued the orders in an attempt to regulate the manufacture of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) by petitioner Inhance Technologies, LLC (Inhance). The Fifth Circuit’s decision comes after EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for Fiscal Years 2024 – 2027, which involve increased emphasis on addressing PFAS exposure and contamination through enforcement actions and potential additional regulations.
U.S. Fifth Circuit Reverses EPA’s Denial of Fuel Program Hardship Exemption for Refineries
In Calumet Shreveport Refining LLC v. EPA, Case No. 22-60266 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denials of six small refineries’ petitions for hardship relief under the Clean Air Act Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, holding that EPA used an “impermissibly retroactive” standard to deny the refineries’ petitions in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. This ruling could serve as a basis for other refineries to challenge EPA’s retroactive denial of their hardship petitions — and provides support for similar petitions pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Fifth Circuit Vacates and Remands Injunction on Nationwide Oil and Gas Lease Pause
On August 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Court) vacated and remanded an order by the federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana (the District Court) of a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the Biden administration (the Government) from pausing oil and gas lease sales. The Court found that the District Court’s decision lacked specificity.
