EPA Issues Notice of Intent to Conduct an EIS for the Proposed Reissuance of CAFO General Permits for Oklahoma and New Mexico
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.18.06
EPA's Region 6 Office in Dallas announced this week that it intends to prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with the NPDES general permit now being developed for CAFOs. The general permit, which has not yet been formally proposed, will implement EPA's revised NPDES rules for CAFOs issued in February 2003. Although Region 6 covers five states (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico) the new general permit will be directly applicable only to CAFOs within Oklahoma and New Mexico — the other states in the Region will issue CAFO NPDES permits themselves. Some have questioned the reasons for preparing an EIS because NPDES permits are exempt from EIS analysis except federal permits for “new sources.” But Region 6 reasons that an EIS makes sense given the large number of CAFOs already in existence. An EIS is not required when a state issues an NPDES permit, so most CAFO NPDES permits will not be subject to the EIS process. The scope of the Region 6 EIS will be decided at meetings to be held in Oklahoma City on June 22 and Las Cruces, N.M. on June 24. Click here for the full text of EPA's May 18 Federal Register notice.
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
