Environmental Justice Update

In the past several months, environmental justice (EJ) has continued to evolve through a shifting balance of federal and state action. While federal agencies have scaled back EJ initiatives, states are increasingly stepping in to fill the gap–advancing new policies, legislation, and regulatory approaches aimed at integrating EJ considerations into environmental permitting and enforcement. In this edition of the Environmental Justice Update, we examine the latest key trends, policy initiatives, and legal developments reshaping the EJ landscape. 

Federal

In June 2025, a coalition of almost two dozen nonprofits, tribes, and local governments sued the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for terminating over 400 grants under the Environmental and Climate Justice (ECJ) Block Grants program created under the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law No: 117-169) (IRA), arguing that the grant terminations were unlawful. The plaintiffs contended that the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, contravened the Presentment Clause and separation of powers, and disregarded Congress’ directive to fund the grants. 

In July 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a multistate coalition of 20 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit. Among other points, the amicus brief argued that the termination of the program disproportionately harms marginalized and historically disadvantaged communities, undermining the core purpose of Congress’s instruction to EPA when it passed the IRA.

In a 29 August 2025 opinion, US District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, saying: “Put simply, I cannot order the Government to reinstate contracts and pay money due on them.” (emphasis in original). Pointing to decisions from earlier this year by the US Supreme Court pertaining to Department of Education grants and grants from the National Institute of Health, Judge Leon also dismissed the case, agreeing with EPA that the suit belonged before the US Court of Federal Claims. 

The majority of plaintiffs appealed Judge Leon’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on 16 September 2025. Plaintiff’s emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal was denied as the court found “that harm to the plaintiffs if the grant funds were returned to the Treasury was not irreparable.”

As this legal dispute plays out, Congress’s rescission of all unobligated funding under the ECJ Block Grants program as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Public Law No.: 119-21), increases the potential difficulty plaintiffs may face in quickly reinstating their grants.  

Multistate EJ Guidance

In response to the rollback of EJ under the Trump Administration earlier this year,¹ many states have recommitted to EJ protections through a multistate EJ guidance. Specifically, in June 2025, a coalition of state attorney generals from 13 states² issued the “Multi-State Guidance Affirming the Importance and Legality of Environmental Justice Initiatives.” This document aims to identify sources of legal support for state EJ laws and to provide assurances to stakeholders that EJ practices remain legal despite the Trump Administration’s efforts to curtail them.

The “Multi-State Guidance” challenges the Trump Administration’s labeling of EJ as “illegal discrimination,” locating support for EJ in a variety of federal statutes and the US Constitution. Specifically, the document finds key support in:

• The US Constitution:
  • The Tenth Amendment: Granting states the power to pass laws that advance “Public health, safety, and welfare.”
  • The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: Barring state and local governmental entities from discriminating based on race or sex.
  • The First Amendment: Barring the government from conditioning benefits on the waiver of free speech rights.
• Civil rights statutes, including:
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Preventing those receiving federal funds from discriminating based on race, color, and national origin. 
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972: Preventing federal funding recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability, age, or sex, respectively.
  • Title VIII of the Federal Fair Housing Act: Outlawing public or private discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin in activities related to housing.
• Federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act’s requirement for public notice and public comment.
• Nonprofit laws that prevent the revocation of 501(c)(3) status by presidential executive order or directive.
• Treaty obligations to Native American tribes.

In addition to laying out what they see as the legal basis for EJ, and based on this analysis, the state attorneys general provide a “non-exhaustive [list of] examples of work that public entities, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, and businesses lawfully undertake to advance environmental justice.” These activities fall into several broad categories:

• Education, technical assistance, and funding support
• Public engagement and participation
• Burden identification and analysis
• Preventing and mitigating pollution exposures
• Climate readiness and resilience 
• Enforcement and remedies

In sum, the multistate guidance seeks to offer stability and assurance to stakeholders by providing clarity on the EJ strategies and resources that remain available to communities in the wake of the federal repeal of EJ initiatives. 

Alaska

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the Republican reconciliation effort passed in July 2025, has impacted US energy and natural resource development across states and industries. Alaska is one state in particular that is positioned to experience a significant change in energy policy as a result of OBBBA. Two key OBBBA provisions—mandatory lease sales in Alaska and an adjustment of revenue sharing rates—have drawn attention from Alaska’s tribal communities, both for their potential to stimulate economic development and for the increased risk of negative environmental impacts that development could bring. 

Specifically, OBBBA directs the secretary of the interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales in certain sections of Alaskan land over the next 10 years, repealing the Biden Administration’s limitation on oil and gas leasing on millions of acres in Alaska and restoring leasing policies established under the first Trump Administration. In addition, OBBBA provides an adjustment of future revenue splits from oil and gas royalties between Alaska and the federal government. This change will result in additional revenue to the Alaska Permanent Fund, which provides cash dividends directly to Alaska residents, along with state and local governments and support services. 

Responses to the changes in OBBBA from Native American organizations in Alaska have been mixed. Some Native American groups have shared their appreciation for the OBBBA’s reversal of Biden administration land policies, stating that the previous administration ignored “Alaska Native self-determination” by withdrawing millions of acres of Alaskan land from development and eliminating avenues of Tribal tax revenue. Other Tribal organizations in Alaska opposed OBBBA and have expressed serious concerns that the “aggressive” oil, gas, and coal development directed in the bill puts “ecologically sensitive and culturally significant” lands at risk. Tribal groups have argued that increased carbon emissions from new oil and gas developments, combined with local pollution from energy infrastructure, will exacerbate the already-significant environmental risks. 

California

Earlier this year, the state of California filed a lawsuit against the city of Tulare, a small city south of Fresno, for alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The suit, filed in January by Attorney General Rob Bonta, claims that Tulare improperly approved a zoning ordinance that allows the development of cold-storage facilities in light and heavy industrial zones. Tulare approved the zoning ordinance in 2024 without conducting an environmental review under CEQA, claiming that the ordinance was exempt from the law’s requirements. Bonta’s suit argues that these cold-storage facilities could pose increased “air pollution and cancer risks” in “a previously racially-segregated community that is now one of the most pollution-burdened and disadvantaged communities in the State.” The case was disposed on 29 April 2025. Notwithstanding, the litigation highlights the state’s efforts to put pressure on a local government to fulfill its legal obligations to mitigate potential environmental harms to residents.

Colorado

This summer, Colorado’s Environmental Justice Action Task Force (Task Force) sought nominations for communities facing environmental inequities to analyze and improve health impacts. The Task Force was originally created on 2 July 2021 with the passing of HB21-1266. Housed in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), the main goal of the Task Force is to propose recommendations to the general assembly on how to address EJ inequalities, particularly in disproportionately impacted communities. On 14 November 2022, the Task Force published a final report detailing their work and findings over the previous year. In this report, the task force recommended that CDPHE develop a branch of the department to conduct environmental equity and cumulative impact analyses (EECIA) across the state. This recommendation led to the passing of HB24-1338 on 28 May 2024. 

HB24-1338 created an Office of Environmental Justice (the Office) housed within CDPHE. This Office specifically oversees the development process of EECIAs in selected geographic areas of Colorado with the goal of understanding how environmental factors affect the health and well-being of Colorado residents. When selecting these areas, the Office must choose disproportionately impacted communities, particularly those affected by a heightened exposure to environmental contaminants. Other factors in this selection process include the proportion of low-income families, the percentage of people of color, and locations with a history of environmental racism. Once these areas are selected, the Office will partner with an academic institution or another third-party to develop an EECIA, which involves hiring a contractor to perform scientifically rigorous analyses recommended by the Task Force. Some of these recommendations include increasing oversight at petroleum refineries, improving the response of the Air Pollution Control Division to air pollution complaints, and analyzing the cumulative impacts of pollution in the air, water, and soil of these communities. Within nine months of completing the EECIA, CDPHE will prepare a report identifying its findings and recommending resources to address environmental inequities. 

The impact of these EECIA analyses is intended to help direct funds and resources from the state level to the local level to address issues for communities most exposed to environmental stressors, such as pollution and extreme heat conditions.

Illinois

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) is drafting proposed statutory language to formally codify the agency’s EJ policy and associated environmental permitting review procedures. Illinois EPA is proposing to limit the enhanced permitting review process to census tracts scoring in the 25th percentile or higher based on certain environmental indicators, with the underlying data to be updated every three years. 

At the same time, several proposed EJ bills have yet to pass, including SB1307 and SB1686, which propose to amend the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and the Illinois Environmental Justice Act respectively, and the bills remain in Assignments (Committee) after the first readings. Against this backdrop, the Illinois Pollution Control Board opened a docket for interested parties to submit proposals for procedural regulations to “provide guidance to the Board when considering EJ issues, including the selection of screening tools for identifying areas of EJ concern, in its proceedings.” Illinois EPA, the Illinois Attorney General and various environmental interest groups have submitted comments. 

The proposed legislation follows a 24 March 2025 EPA announcement that Illinois EPA had satisfied its obligations under the February 2025 Informal Resolution Agreement, which was issued to resolve allegations that Illinois EPA engaged in discriminatory permitting processes. Under the Informal Resolution Agreement, Illinois EPA committed, among other objectives, to “implement[ ] enhancements to its permit review process” and “ensure [Illinois] EPA’s public involvement process will be available to all persons[.]” 

Under the current EJ policy, permitting actions in “areas of EJ concern”—defined as “a census block group with a low-income and/or minority population greater than twice the statewide average”—are subject to stricter scrutiny and heightened public participation requirements. Illinois EPA currently utilizes a GIS mapping tool, known as EJ Start, to determine areas of EJ concern within the state.

Massachusetts

Enacted under Senate Bill 2521 in August 2024, the Environmental Justice Trust (Trust) was signed into Massachusetts’ state budget following a joint proposal by Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell, Representative Brandy Fluker-Oakley, and Senator Adam Gomez. Funded through civil penalties that are received in judgments and settlements from state cases involving the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Division, the Trust seeks to benefit community health by using these funds to address economic, environmental, and health-related burdens frequently faced by residents in disadvantaged communities. The Trust will help to address longstanding disparities in environmental health faced primarily by lower-income communities in Massachusetts. 

The Trust is funded by the penalties accrued from cases against:

• Companies that illegally emit or emit beyond permitted amounts, toxins and other pollutants into the air; 
• Contractors who expose employees to asbestos during demolitions; 
• Companies that discharge pollutants into local rivers and streams either illegally or beyond the scope of their permits; and 
• Entities that wrongfully destroy essential areas of wetland and green spaces that increase flood potential in surrounding communities. 

The Trust allows monies to be directed at impacted communities to address financial burdens caused by violations, rather than the monies going into the commonwealth’s general fund. The money in the Trust will specifically be used to restore impacted natural resources, investigate environmental pollution or harm caused to local property, benefit the overall health of the affected community, and provide support to academic or government-funded research to further identify environmental protection and conservation measures in these areas. 

On 27 January 2025, the AG’s Office announced that the first payments of a consent judgment against four companies, totaling US$155,000, would be placed into the Trust. More recently, on 8 September 2025, a local Massachusetts company reached an agreement with the AG’s Office for a settlement of US$300,000 in civil penalties, of which US$150,000 will be deposited into the Trust for a violation of the Massachusetts Clean Air Act and illegal asbestos removal. On 10 September 2025, the AG’s Office announced another settlement agreement with a Massachusetts based company for US$115,000 in penalties, with US$55,000 going into the Trust, for illegally handling, removing, and storing asbestos.

Maryland

On 17 July 2025, Governor Wes Moore signed the Valuing Opportunity, Inclusion, and Community Equity Executive Order (The VOICE Order). The VOICE Order, which went into effect immediately, creates the Interagency Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Council (the Council), which will strive to create a unified front among the state’s agencies to deal with the issue of environmental inequity. Made up of representatives from 14 state agencies appointed by the governor, the Council will coordinate state efforts, track relevant spending, and perform several other tasks to advise the agencies on advancing the governor’s EJ priorities. For example, the VOICE Order requires agencies to use Maryland’s EJ mapping tool, MDEnviroScreen, to “track and address disparities related to environmental hazards, exposures, risks, health outcomes, investments and benefits.”

Critically, the Council is tasked with developing enhanced public participation plans for communities with EJ concerns potentially affected by certain resource extraction, waste management, and industrial and manufacturing processes and activities. The Council will also provide technical assistance to localities in developing and implementing EJ programs and making concrete recommendations to the governor regarding how to best address disparate environmental health impacts caused by state action.

Michigan

On 1 July 2025 and 22 July 2025, Senate Bill 479 and House Bill 4742, entitled the “Protecting Overburdened Communities Act,” was introduced to amend Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) environmental permitting review process. The law would require EGLE to consider the cumulative impact of all pollutant types associated with a potential project. Additionally, the bill would require the agency to account for the greater risk of harm that social and economic factors have on communities. EGLE will use its EJ screening tool, MiEJScreen, to assess projects for environmental risk. If EGLE finds a negative impact on overburdened communities without a compelling need for the project, it has authority under the legislation to deny a permit application. Further, the policy requires permit applicants to give their community 60 days’ notice for a public hearing on the permit and prepare a project impact statement. Applicants must publish the information in at least two community newspapers, including a local non-English paper.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Tourism and the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment in July and has not progressed further as of the date of this publication.

New Jersey

On 8 October 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division held oral arguments on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:1C (the Rules), which implement the Environmental Justice Law N.J.S.A. 13:1D-157 to -161 (the EJ Law).

Petitioners focused on aspects of the Rules that they argue go beyond the authority granted to NJDEP under the EJ Law, such as the Rules’ application to “zero population blocks”, and the Rules’ definitions for terms such as new facility, existing facility, expansion, and geographic point of comparison. Petitioners and amici further raised the lack of predictability that the Rules provide, particularly in terms of timing of the EJ process and NJDEP’s application of the EJ stressors, which petitioners noted were implemented in the EJMAP tool without being properly subject to administrative procedures. 

In response, NJDEP argued that the department reasonably and permissibly filled in the gaps provided in the law using its expertise. NJDEP and its amici also argued that the Rules’ definitions meet the plain language test and are consistent with defined terms in other NJDEP regulatory programs. The court pressed NJDEP on a number of issues including the Rules’ threshold for measuring the contribution of adverse cumulative stressors, NJDEP’s development of its EJMAP, and the fact that the Rules do not factor economic considerations. 

The court has taken the matter under advisement for further consideration.

Conclusion

Our EJ Task Force continues to closely monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area, including the updates highlighted above. As the EJ focus continues to evolve, businesses—particularly those operating in overburdened communities—should remain vigilant and track policy shifts and enforcement trends at both the federal and state levels. Staying informed and proactive is essential to managing risk and aligning with emerging compliance expectations. The firm is ready to work with clients to understand how these and other changes may impact their businesses.