Legislative & Judicial Updates

Themis, Greek goddess of justice, holding scales in front of a courthouse

The proper allocation of the burden of proof during closing arguments is a recurring issue in civil litigation. On August 19, 2025, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial in Harrell v. City of Chicago, offering important guidance regarding improper burden shifting during closing arguments. 2025 IL App (1st) 240119, ¶ 83. The ruling makes clear that while parties may highlight unrebutted evidence, only defendants may highlight when an expert was not retained to rebut or prove a specific element of the case.

On December 2, 2025, Bayer announced that the Solicitor General of the United States,
D. John Sauer1 has recommended the United States Supreme Court take up the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell2 appeal on the Roundup product litigation. The Supreme Court previously invited the Solicitor General to weigh in on the views of the United States.3 In response, Mr. Sauer’s office authored their own petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing with Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”)’s arguments that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”)4 preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims concerning Roundup.

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

Introduction

On October 6, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Syngenta Crop, LLC v. Nemeth, passing on an opportunity to clarify its prior decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern and address whether Pennsylvania’s “consent to jurisdiction” statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The result: for now, out-of-state corporations registered to do business in Pennsylvania remain subject to general personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, regardless of the extent of their in-state operations.

Background – Public Health and the Need for Employer Accountability

Senate Bill 20, also called the Silicosis Training, Outreach, and Prevention (STOP) Act, was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 13, 2025.1 Senator Caroline Menjivar is on the forefront of this battle to avoid preventable injuries and illnesses by enforcing proper safety measures at fabrication shops.

T

The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (No. 23-0493) clarifies proximate causation in personal injury cases ensuring an appropriate bar for proving the causation element of a negligence claim. The Court reversed a nearly $90 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, hinged on a holding that the substantial factor element of proximate causation was not met in a deadly collision where a vehicle carrying the plaintiffs lost control on an icy road, crossed a wide median into oncoming traffic, and collided with an 18-wheeler operated negligently by the commercial truck driver. “Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” but rather also requires “proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.”  Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake No. 23-0493, 2025 WL 2239275, at *1 (Tex. June 27, 2025).

On August 15, 2025, Governor Pritzker signed Senate Bill 328 into law, effective immediately. The bill makes significant changes to the law governing jurisdiction in Illinois, namely changing Illinois from a specific jurisdiction state to a general jurisdiction state for actions that allege injury or illness resulting from exposure to a toxic substance. 

On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, granted the Trump Administration’s request to stay a permanent injunction that had ordered the reinstatement of three Democratic CPSC Commissioners: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. (the “Commissioners”), after the Administration fired them from the independent agency without cause.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court of Washington overruled previous precedent regarding the deliberate intent to injure exception related to workers’ compensation immunity for employers, finding that an employee may sue its employer for latent disease injury if they can establish the employer had actual knowledge that latent diseases are “virtually certain” to occur. Cockrum v.
C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., 569 P.3d 287, 289 (Wash. 2025). In Cockrum, the Plaintiff is a living mesothelioma claimant (“Plaintiff”), who filed suit against his employer as a premises defendant (“Defendant”), alleging that they deliberately intended to injure him by exposing him to asbestos without proper warnings or protections while he worked as a laborer at their facility from 1967 to 1997. He further argued that Defendant had actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur from asbestos exposure but willfully disregarded that knowledge by continuously exposing him to asbestos without proper warning or protection. Specifically, he alleged exposure to asbestos while working in the environmental lab, where he tested samples for asbestos without any protective gear.