In a significant development concerning Minnesota’s environmental regulations, an administrative court rejected the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) proposed rule on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting and associated fees.1 This decision, issued on
August 29, 2025, highlights procedural and substantive criteria considered in the MPCA’s rulemaking process.2
In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).
Michigan Grapples With Airport Authority Over Application of Federal Officer Removal Statute in PFAS Litigation
For the last several months, the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (Airport) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has been locked in an appellate battle with Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and State Attorney General Dana Nessel (collectively, Michigan) over whether the Airport may remove Michigan’s lawsuit over the Airport’s use of PFAS[1]-containing firefighting foam based on the federal officer removal doctrine.
Recently, in Moore v. Elec. Boat Corp., No. 21-1566, 2022 WL 278535 (1st Cir. Jan. 31, 2022), a government contractor-defendant successfully appealed remand based on 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the so-called Federal Officer Removal Statute.
Moore serves as a reminder – especially to asbestos defendants – that contractors acting under the direction of a branch of the military (or any U.S. agency) should determine the extent of the government’s involvement. A fact-intensive inquiry, such evidence may be sufficient
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts and litigants are reinventing civil litigation – holding hearings on Zoom or Skype, using emails and conference calls to communicate status, and taking remote depositions. That said, “virtual discovery” is not new. Since 1993, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly authorized taking depositions by remote electronic means. States including Ohio, Massachusetts and Texas have followed suit. See, e.g., Ohio R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); Mass. R. Civ. P. 29; Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.1
St. Louis City Judge Michael K. Mullen recently entered an important order interpreting Missouri’s 2019 legislation governing joinder and venue law. See Order, Johnson v. Bayer Corporation, et al., 1622-CC01049-01 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis Cty. May 5, 2020) (Johnson). Put simply, St. Louis City’s automatically-generated trial docket dates (the “rolling docket”) do not satisfy the eligibility requirement of a having a “trial date” on or before August 28, 2019 within the savings clause.
With a busy holiday season ahead, many shoppers are looking forward to finding that unique gift. Parents of children who enjoy crafts or building will be especially attracted to the creative possibilities of a home 3D printer. Kids can make their own jewelry, model cars, and even wearable fashion. With an industry still in its infancy in the consumer market, I sat down with Brandan Mueller to better understand the legal pitfalls inherent in the expected Christmas season sales bump. Brandan is Husch Blackwell’s expert on the intersection of traditional consumer protection / products liability law and 3D printing technology.
OSHA’s proposed rule was announced on November 8. It modifies an employer’s obligation to transmit records of injury and illness reports to OSHA by amending 29 CFR 1904.41. The new regulation adds three new electronic reporting requirements.