Seth Jaffe

3 weeks ago | mondaq.com | Seth Jaffe |Beth Neitzel |Noah Shaw |James Gross

On May 29, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court (voting 8-0, withJustice Gorsuch recused) held that federal agencies need notconsider the environmental effects of "upstream" and"downstream" projects that are separate in time or placefrom the project under review. See Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. EagleCounty, Colorado.

3 weeks ago | jdsupra.com | Kevin Chen |James Gross |Seth Jaffe

On May 29, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court (voting 8-0, with Justice Gorsuch recused) held that federal agencies need not consider the environmental effects of “upstream” and “downstream” projects that are separate in time or place from the project under review. See Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado.

4 weeks ago | mondaq.com | Seth Jaffe

On May 16, in Texas v. EPA, the 5th Circuit Courtof Appeals rejected EPA's nonattainment designation for twocounties in Texas. What I find most interesting about the case isthe reaction to it. Inside EPA (subscription required) states thatthe decision is:Notable in that it offers EPA less deference on technicalmatters, following a key Supreme Court ruling limitation statutoryinterpretation deference.

1 month ago | openlegalblogarchive.org | Seth Jaffe

Posted on May 27, 2025 by Seth D. JaffeOn May 16, in Texas v. EPA, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s nonattainment designation for two counties in Texas. What I find most interesting about the case is the reaction to it. Inside EPA (subscription required) states that the decision is:Notable in that it offers EPA less deference on technical matters, following a key Supreme Court ruling limitation statutory interpretation deference.

1 month ago | jdsupra.com | Seth Jaffe

On May 16, in Texas v. EPA, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s nonattainment designation for two counties in Texas.  What I find most interesting about the case is the reaction to it.  Inside EPA (subscription required) states that the decision is:Notable in that it offers EPA less deference on technical matters, following a key Supreme Court ruling limitation statutory interpretation deference.