1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Environmental Appeals Board Ratifies First Group of Air Consent Agreements

Environmental Appeals Board Ratifies First Group of Air Consent Agreements

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.27.06

In an extensive opinion issued today, the Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB") took the final necessary step in EPA's administrative process and ratified twenty Animal Feeding Operations Air Consent Agreements. The EAB responded to numerous substantive challenges to the agreements raised by various citizen groups (including the Association of Irritated Residents and the Sierra Club) and held that the agreements comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Now that the EAB has ratified these air consent agreements, EPA will coordinate the EAB's approval of the remaining 2,600+ agreements, which we expect will occur very quickly. The 20 agreements ratified today involved 10 swine and 10 egg farms.

We expect that the air monitoring studies will proceed shortly for the swine and egg species.

For a copy of the EAB's opinion and final order, click here.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights