The U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming term features several cases with potentially far-reaching consequences for environmental law and regulation. While not all these cases arise in an explicitly environmental context, each one could meaningfully shape how environmental claims are litigated, how agencies enforce environmental requirements, and how procedural rules play out in high-stakes disputes. Below is a look at the key cases those impacted by environmental law issues should be tracking.
Can States Hold Emitters Liable for Climate Change?
In Suncor Energy, Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170, the court will consider “[w]hether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The court has also asked the parties to brief whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case at all.
This is arguably the most consequential environmental case on the docket. At its core, the case asks whether state tort law can serve as a vehicle for seeking damages tied to climate change — or whether federal law occupies the field entirely. A ruling in favor of preemption could effectively close the courthouse door on a growing wave of state-court climate litigation brought by municipalities and counties against fossil fuel companies. Conversely, if the court permits these claims to proceed, it would validate a powerful tool for plaintiffs seeking to hold emitters accountable under state law. The outcome could reshape climate litigation nationwide.
Does NEPA Apply When Agencies Seek RCRA Permits?
In Dept. of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, No. 25-579, the court will consider whether a federal agency’s submission of a RCRA permit-renewal application to a state or territorial regulator constitutes a “final agency action” reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, and whether the agency must complete NEPA review before submitting that application.
The Ninth Circuit answered yes on both counts, holding that a permit-renewal application is itself a final agency action triggering both APA review and NEPA obligations. The practical stakes are significant: if affirmed, federal facilities seeking to renew hazardous waste permits under RCRA would face an added layer of environmental review and potential litigation before even filing their applications. The case also raises broader questions about how cross-cutting statutes like the APA and NEPA interact with program-specific environmental laws like RCRA — a question with implications well beyond waste management.
Can Agencies Adjudicate Monetary Penalties Without Article III Courts?
In Dept. of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, No. 25-966, the court will decide “whether Article III of the Constitution precludes the Department of Labor from adjudicating proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who have allegedly violated the terms and conditions of employment” for H-2A and corresponding domestic workers.
Although the dispute originates in the labor and agricultural context, its implications extend far beyond. If the court restricts agencies’ constitutional authority to impose monetary remedies through administrative adjudication, the ripple effects could reach every corner of the federal regulatory landscape. Environmental practitioners should pay close attention: EPA enforcement actions, OSHA workplace-safety penalties, and natural-resource damage assessments all rely, to varying degrees, on administrative adjudicatory frameworks. A broad ruling here could force agencies to bring more enforcement actions in federal court, potentially slowing the pace of enforcement and altering the dynamics of settlement negotiations.
Must Affirmative Defenses Be Pleaded Before They Can Support Summary Judgment?
In Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, No. 25-352, the court will consider whether a defendant may raise an affirmative defense as the basis for a summary judgment motion even when the defense was not pleaded in the answer or an amended answer, and whether a defendant may do so even if an amendment adding that defense would be barred by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).
The Eleventh Circuit permitted the practice where there was no prejudice to the plaintiff, but other circuits have taken a stricter approach. While this is a procedural case on its face, it carries real significance for environmental litigation. Complex environmental disputes — whether involving CERCLA contribution claims, toxic tort actions, or regulatory challenges — frequently turn on affirmative defenses such as statutes of limitations, regulatory compliance, or divisibility of harm. A ruling that loosens pleading requirements for affirmative defenses could give defendants in these cases greater flexibility to raise dispositive arguments at summary judgment, even if those defenses were not initially identified in their pleadings.
The Environmental Law Monitor Blog will continue to monitor these cases and provide updates as the court issues decisions.