wlf.org

By: Christopher D. Thomas Holland & Hart LLP The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking public comment on an important Proposed Rule governing when and how the agency will conduct environmental reviews under the long-troubled National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq.

By: Zac Morgan Senior Litigation Counsel Washington Legal Foundation Federal courts have increasingly rebuffed First Amendment challenges to state efforts to compel commercial speech or association by citing Rumsfeld v.

“The securities laws do not give the SEC a freestanding mandate to regulate climate policy, and the Commission agrees.” — Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click HERE to read WLF’s comment. WASHINGTON, DC—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today submitted a comment letter supporting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal to rescind its 2024 climate-disclosure rules, which would have exceeded the agency’s authority and raised significant First Amendment concerns.

By: Lucy Dennis Washington Legal Foundation Issues: Combating Litigation Abuse: Civil Justice, Expert Evidence / Junk Science “Res ipsa loquitur”—the thing speaks for itself. Though its name is rooted in Latin, the doctrine became a fixture of the common law. Traditionally reserved for accidents that themselves suggest negligence, res ipsa loquitur remains a narrow exception to ordinary evidentiary requirements.

Last month, the Supreme Court held in Monsanto v. Durnell that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, in tandem with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, bars a state jury from punishing the maker of Roundup for omitting a cancer warning the EPA has repeatedly refused to require. The decision was right on the law. The reason has less to do with weedkiller than with who, in a country of 50 states and one federal regulator, gets to write the label.

“[Former Chief Judge] Michel highlighted that antitrust law plays a complementary role that encourages competition when properly coordinated with patent law.” This week, several amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting defendant-appellees Amgen in an antitrust suit brought by rival pharmaceutical firm Sandoz, which is appealing the dismissal of its complaint by the Eastern District of Virginia.

By: Frank Cruz-Alvarez Arnold & Porter Samantha Thomas Arnold & Porter Last month, the Fourth Circuit vacated a class-certification order, finding that the commonality and predominance requirements for a damages class action brought under Rule 23(b)(3) were not met. Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, No. 25-1520, 2026 WL 1718962, at *1 (4th Cir. June 15, 2026). This decision further entrenches the commonality and predominance requirements set forth in Stafford v.

Issues: Combating Litigation Abuse: Product Liability / Toxic Torts, Punitive Damages “Punitive damages are meant to punish wrongdoing. The jury found the driver primarily responsible for the accident. A $200 million punitive award against Telsa has no legal basis.” —Jay DeSanto, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel Click HERE to read WLF’s brief.

By: Zac Morgan Senior Litigation Counsel Washington Legal Foundation It’s not every day that we speak kindly of FDA’s perspective on the First Amendment here at Washington Legal Foundation.

For years, companies evaluated their compliance programs primarily by examining internal misconduct, prior investigations, and audit findings. Increasingly, however, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) expects companies to go further to ensure compliance.