In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude an expert’s causation opinion as unreliable and grant summary judgment in favor of a herbicide manufacturer. The case, which arose from claims that exposure to an herbicide caused the plaintiff’s blood cancer, underscores the critical importance of rigorous and well-supported expert analysis in toxic tort litigation and the judiciary’s gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.1
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
As regulatory scrutiny and litigation risks continue to expand, manufacturers are facing an unprecedented wave of toxic tort and product liability challenges. Substances such as PFAS, silica, benzene, and talc are increasingly at the center of high-stakes lawsuits, with significant implications for the industry.
Join us on November 20, 2025 (noon – 1:00 p.m. CT)
Oklahoma has now joined many other states creating specialty business courts to handle complex business litigation. Senate Bill 632 creates two new specialized business courts, which will be located in Oklahoma County and Tulsa County. Oklahoma’s Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, is authorized to appoint a judge for an eight-year term for each location from a list of three candidates provided by the Speaker of the House.
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for Exxon Mobil corporation in Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (No. 14-22-00756-CV), a premises liability case involving alleged exposure to olivine dust. The ruling highlights the importance of reliable expert testimony and strict adherence to procedural rules in toxic tort litigation.
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.
