In this episode of our "An Energized Exchange" podcast series, presented by the Energy & Natural Resources Industry Sector Group, attorneys Zach Pilchen, Brian Bunger and Rafe Petersen discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its constitutional, environmental and judicial implications. The case stems from California's unique authority under the Clean Air Act to enforce vehicle emission standards, requiring automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and less liquid fuel powered vehicles. While these standards directly regulate car makers, the case was made by fuel companies that their business would be impacted by the decrease in demand for gasoline and diesel. The conversation also touches on the impact of the Supreme Court's decision regarding ongoing battles over California's air quality rules and other EPA regulations, suggesting more legal challenges may arise from a wider range of players on both sides of environmental issues.

In this episode of our "An Energized Exchange" podcast series, presented by the Energy & Natural Resources Industry Sector Group, attorneys Andy Kriha, Susan Lafferty and Zach Pilchen break down recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in relation to the Clean Air Act (CAA), including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) v. Calumet Shreveport Refining and Oklahoma v. EPA. As the attorneys explain, these two rulings settle disagreements among federal courts over which venue is appropriate for challenging certain EPA actions under the CAA. They discuss the key takeaways from these decisions and what they signal for the future of where and how EPA actions can be disputed in court.

In this episode of our "An Energized Exchange" podcast series by our Energy & Natural Resources Industry Sector Group, attorneys Andrew McAllister, Susan Lafferty and Robert Friedman provide a timely update on the impact of recent tariff changes implemented by the Trump Administration. They look at the swift international reactions and negotiations that followed the signing of three executive orders on Feb. 1, 2025, which imposed significant tariffs — 25 percent on products from Canada and Mexico and 10 percent on those from China. Notably, although the tariffs on China went into effect almost immediately, those aimed at Canada and Mexico were paused for 30 days as discussions ensued regarding issues including crime prevention and fentanyl trafficking. The episode highlights the complexities of tariff implementation, legal avenues for imposing tariffs under Sections 301 and 232, and the potential for flexibility under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).