Mikaela Barbour

On September 23, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that Section 233 of the Clean Air Act expressly preempts state law claims brought by residents living beneath the takeoff and landing paths of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac).1 Although the panel agreed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, it ultimately reversed the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss and remanded accordingly.

On September 16, 2026, the US District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a preliminary injunction barring the State of New Mexico (New Mexico or the State) from enforcing its PFAS product-labeling regulation while litigation proceeds.1 The American Chemistry Council and allied trade groups sued the Secretary of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the Attorney General, arguing that the mandate compels speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Overview The waste and recycling industry’s bid to unwind one of the most consequential PFAS regulations has failed. On August 18, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied industry petitions challenging EPA’s 2024 rule designating two forever chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).