Executive Orders
EO 14309 Implementing the General Terms of the United States of America–United Kingdom Economic Prosperity Deal
Establishes the legal and administrative framework to implement the recently signed U.S.–U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal. The order directs federal agencies to coordinate regulatory alignment, reduce trade barriers, and facilitate investment between the two countries. It promotes innovation partnerships, workforce mobility, and sustainable energy cooperation. The order also mandates periodic progress reporting to ensure measurable economic outcomes and mutual accountability under the agreement.
EO 14308 Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response
Launches a national strategy to reduce wildfire risk through expanded use of prescribed burns, forest thinning, and improved land management practices. The order increases funding for firefighting personnel and modernizes federal coordination with state and tribal governments. It accelerates deployment of early detection technologies, satellite monitoring, and AI-based predictive modeling. The order also prioritizes resilient infrastructure development in fire-prone areas and streamlines environmental review processes to enable rapid response projects.
US Congress
H.J.Res.89 Disapproving California’s Omnibus Low NOX Regulation
Introduced by Rep. Jay Obernolte, this resolution nullifies an Environmental Protection Agency rule granting California a waiver to enforce stricter “Omnibus” Low NOX emission standards for motor vehicles and engines. Opponents argued the rule imposed burdensome regulations that could disrupt interstate commerce and increase vehicle costs nationwide.
H.J.Res.88 Disapproving California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Rule
Introduced by Rep. John Joyce, this resolution overturns an EPA decision allowing California to implement its Advanced Clean Cars II program, which includes aggressive zero-emission vehicle mandates. Lawmakers opposing the rule contended it could limit consumer choice and drive up costs for manufacturers and drivers alike.
H.J.Res.87 Disapproving California’s Heavy-Duty Emissions and Zero-Emission Truck Standards
Introduced by Rep. John James, this resolution repeals multiple EPA-approved California emissions rules, including standards for heavy-duty trucks, zero-emission airport shuttles, and powertrain certifications. Critics argued the waiver granted to California would create a fragmented regulatory environment and harm U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
S.160 Aerial Firefighting Enhancement Act of 2025
Introduced by Sen. Tim Sheehy, this law expands the federal government’s capacity for combating wildfires through aerial support. It authorizes increased investment in aircraft, technology, and personnel dedicated to aerial firefighting missions, aiming to strengthen national wildfire response amid growing fire seasons in the western United States.
SCOTUS
FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that retailers of a tobacco product qualify as “persons adversely affected” by an FDA premarket denial under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, therefore having standing to challenge FDA marketing orders in their home circuit—not just manufacturers in the D.C. Circuit. Justice Barrett wrote for the Court, affirming the Fifth Circuit’s venue finding and emphasizing that broadly reading “adversely affected” enhances access to judicial review. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined; Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissented. The ruling broadens venue flexibility for vaping companies and retailers.
Esteras v. United States
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that district courts revoking supervised release may not consider the retribution factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), because Congress explicitly excluded it from § 3583(e). Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, applied the expressio unius canon, concluding that excluding “promote respect for the law” signals retribution is not relevant in revocation hearings. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented. The decision vacates the Sixth Circuit and remands for further proceedings.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
In a 6–3 decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that under the Hobbs Act, district courts in civil enforcement proceedings are not bound by the FCC’s interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The decision grants lower courts interpretive autonomy in enforcement suits. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented. The Court reversed and remanded the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment.
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA
In a 7–2 decision, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of California clean-air regulations requiring automakers to produce more electric vehicles. The Court reversed the lower court and remanded for further proceedings. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented.
Stanley v. City of Stanford
In an 8–1 decision, Justice Gorsuch held that under Title I of the ADA, a “qualified individual” must hold or seek a job; retirees are therefore not covered. The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s dismissal of an employment-discrimination claim by a retired individual.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
In a 9–0 decision, Chief Justice Roberts held that under the PSJVTA, U.S. victims of overseas terrorist attacks may pursue damages claims against the PLO and PA in U.S. courts. The Court reversed and remanded the Second Circuit’s dismissal
NRC v. Texas
In a 6–3 decision, Justice Kavanaugh held that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may proceed with licensing an interim nuclear waste storage facility without state court oversight; Texas and landowners lack Article III standing. The Court reversed and remanded the Fifth Circuit ruling.
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally applicable actions subject to exclusive review in the D.C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act’s “nationwide scope or effect” exception. The Court ruled that EPA’s nationwide legal determinations on “disproportionate economic hardship” and RIN passthrough formed the primary basis for denial, triggering this exception despite individual refinery-specific reviews. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by seven justices. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts. The Fifth Circuit’s decision was vacated and remanded.
Oklahoma et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA’s disapprovals of state-specific Clean Air Act implementation plans (SIPs) are locally or regionally applicable actions subject to review in regional Circuits—not the D.C. Circuit—even when bundled into a single nationwide rule. The Court emphasized that each SIP disapproval is a distinct, state-specific action under 42 U.S.C. §7607(b)(1), and EPA’s use of a uniform framework does not make them nationally applicable. Because EPA’s decisions were based on detailed, state-specific facts rather than a primary nationwide determination, the exception requiring D.C. Circuit review did not apply. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by six justices. Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment. Justice Alito did not participate. The Tenth Circuit ruling was reversed and remanded.
United States v. Skrmetti
In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law (SB1) banning puberty blockers and hormones for minors to treat gender dysphoria, finding no violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled SB1 does not classify based on sex or transgender status and thus only requires rational basis review, which it meets due to the state’s interests in protecting minors’ health. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by five others, with three dissenting. The Sixth Circuit’s decision was affirmed.
Perttu v. Richards
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that prisoners are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion disputes when those disputes are intertwined with the merits of their claims. Inmate Kyle Richards alleged that officer Thomas Perttu sexually harassed him and destroyed grievance forms to block complaints. A lower court dismissed the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the exhaustion issue was tied to Richards’s First Amendment claim. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that when factual disputes affect both exhaustion and the merits, the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson. Justice Barrett dissented, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. The decision was affirmed.
