Note from the Chair

by Katy Riker

The Environment and Natural Resources Section is pleased to sponsor October’s issue of the Advocate.  I hope that you find these articles helpful as you navigate environmental law’s evolving landscape. 

In recent years, political transitions have triggered significant instability in environmental regulations.[1] By now, the Chevron Doctrine’s 2024 demise is old hat.[2] Practitioners wrestling with federal agency deference now turn to Loper Bright v. Raimondo with only a hint of nostalgia for Chevron’s agency-deference test that we learned in law school.

This year, changes are happening at a breakneck pace. The U.S. Supreme Court has profoundly reshaped environmental law through several landmark decisions impacting the federal government’s implementation of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other statutes.[3]

And the shift towards deregulation is not limited to the courts, particularly in the NEPA sphere. Indeed, President Trump has issued numerous executive orders directing agencies to cut down environmental permitting processes.[4]  As directed by President Trump, the Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations, further directing agencies to formulate their own NEPA procedures.[5] The Department of the Interior responded by partially rescinding its own NEPA regulations, determining that it would rely almost exclusively on its own pared-down NEPA guidance for environmental reviews going forward.[6] Other federal agencies are doing the same.[7] Congress is taking action to limit regulatory controls of the environment too. For example, the U.S. House of Representatives recently used the Congressional Review Act to reject amendments to a Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan.[8]

There is not enough space here to cover every recent regulatory change in the environmental space—suffice it to say that the changes are seismic.

Given that the federal government manages about 62% of Idaho’s land mass, these shifts have significant impacts on how Idahoans use federal lands.[9]  Shifts in federal environmental protections shape how states and local governments regulate the environment, bringing matters even closer to home.

Idaho is renowned for its outdoor recreation, wilderness, rugged beauty, and quiet spaces. It’s also renowned for its resources.  This richness is reflected in our state seal, featuring a miner; an agricultural valley and bountiful harvest; a fir tree symbolizing timber production; and an elk giving a nod to Idaho’s wildlife.

If these topics interest you, I encourage you to join the Environment and Natural Resources Section for one of our monthly CLE discussions.  We strive to bring diverse viewpoints into focus through spirited discussions from conservationists, regulators, scientists, and industry.  You’ll walk away with the latest environmental news, an appreciation for the Section’s collegial and knowledgeable membership, and a free lunch. That may be the one outcome I can predict this year!

[1] See, e.g., Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023) (limiting the Clean Water Act); West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (limiting Clean Air Act).

[2] See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (overturning Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).

[3] See, e.g., City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. EPA, 145 S. Ct. 704 (2025);

[4] See, e.g., Executive Order 14,154 (90 Fed. Reg. 8353) (Jan. 20, 2025) (titled “Unleashing American Energy”).  

[5] 90 Fed. Reg. 10,610 (Feb. 25, 2025); see 90 Fed. Reg. at 8,355 (directing CEQ to rescind its NEPA regulations).

[6] 90 Fed. Reg. 29,498 (July 3, 2025).

[7] See, e.g., 90 Fed. Reg. 29,423 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NEPA procedures); 90 Fed. Reg. 29,632 (July 3, 2025) (United States Department of Agriculture NEPA procedures).

[8] H.J. Res. 104, 119th Cong. (2025). BLM’s resource management plans are comprehensive planning documents guiding the agency’s management of public lands, balancing multiple purposes for sustained yield.  See 43 C.F.R. Part 1601. BLM is required to create such plans under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1712.

[9] Hanson, Laura A.; Vincent, Carol Hardy, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R42346,  Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (2020).