Court Decisions Court Rules Statute Utah 
The Volokh Conspiracy
JUNE 13, 2025
So when people exposed to Agent Orange sued Dow in state court, Dow was able to have the case removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute. For those practicing in the Seventh Circuit , here's a charming little primer on how the court screens district-court decisions for jurisdictional problems.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
DECEMBER 11, 2020
The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted BLM’s and federal officials’ motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of claims that they failed to comply with NEPA in connection with 27 oil and gas leasing decisions across Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Montana between September 2016 and March 2019.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 25, 2024
The federal court ruled resoundingly in favor of SIFMA, finding for plaintiffs on all counts. Further, the court noted that ERISA’s savings clause, essentially an escape hatch from preemption, would not allow for the rules’ survival because the laws “pose an obstacle” to ERISA’s comprehensive scheme. The appeal of Utah v.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 7, 2019
The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JUNE 8, 2021
Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
AUGUST 4, 2021
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The Ninth Circuit declined to remand with instructions for dismissal of the underlying action and also declined to vacate any district court decisions.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
83 
Let's personalize your content