The Supreme Court could rule that communities can’t seek compensation for climate damage caused by oil companies violating state consumer protection laws.
This Supreme Court case is about whether the U.S. military can move forward with dangerous activities without following the federal law requiring an environmental review.
Earthjustice filed its merits brief today in the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan, a case about whether the U.S. military can destroy its…
En una decisión de 7 votos a favor y 2 en contra, el supremo dictaminó que la Ley Federal sobre Pesticidas prevalece sobre las demandas estatales por falta de advertencia,…
In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims, sharply limiting the ability of people harmed by toxic pesticides to hold manufacturers…
In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission's authority to enforce federal law, reinforcing the ability of federal agencies to hold powerful industries accountable
Si la Corte falla a favor de la industria química, pacientes con cáncer y trabajadores agrícolas podrían perder su único recurso para obtener una compensación cuando los pesticidas tóxicos les…
If the Court sides with the chemical industry, cancer patients and farmworkers could lose their only path to compensation when toxic pesticides make them sick
The case is one of thousands brought by people who got non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after applying Monsanto’s Roundup. Two FIFRA regulations will likely loom large at argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing Monsanto v. Durnell, a case that could determine whether people harmed by pesticides can still bring so-called failure-to-warn claims under state law.
