CAFO Rule - Environmental Groups Identify Their Legal Claims
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.03
The parties litigating EPA's revised CAFO regulations filed papers in May identifying the claims that they intend to assert. Four environmental groups (so far) have challenged the CAFO rule in court. These related cases, in addition to suits by four industry associations, have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Although most of the parties submitted only generalized statements of their claims, the list submitted by the Sierra Club is detailed enough to provide some insight into the regulatory changes the group wants to require.
Sierra Club's filing indicates that it will challenge:
- EPA's recognition of any CAFO land application area runoff as exempt "agricultural storm water discharge";
- EPA's failure to require sufficient restrictions on land application of CAFO waste in watersheds where water quality is impaired;
- EPA's failure to require agency approval of, and public review and comment on, each CAFO's nutrient management plan;
- EPA's decision to allow the use of "general permits" that do not involve public review and comment on each CAFO's permit application;
- EPA's elimination of the "co-permitting" and "integrator liability" provisions that were in included in the proposed CAFO rule; and
- EPA's failure to adequately protect groundwater, including requirements for groundwater monitoring.
Sierra Club's list also threatens to challenge EPA's identification of the "best available technology economically achievable" and the agency's purported failure to limit metals, pathogens, antibiotics, and other pollutants in CAFO waste.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
