Regulatory Litigation &
Enforcement Defense
Whether responding to an agency investigation, defending an enforcement action, or challenging a regulation in court, Verdant Law helps clients navigate high-stakes regulatory disputes.
Verdant attorneys have successfully challenged permits and regulations under the CAA, CWA, TSCA, RCRA, the OSH Act, and other federal statutes before federal courts and administrative tribunals. We conduct internal investigations and compliance audits, represent clients responding to agency investigations and information requests, and negotiate data compensation agreements and other regulatory resolutions. We also defend clients in enforcement matters brought by federal agencies, including EPA, as well as state and local environmental departments.
Our litigation practice draws on the deep substantive knowledge we bring to every matter—the same understanding of underlying science, agency practice, and regulatory history that informs our counseling work. When regulatory expertise and litigation strategy are fully integrated, clients benefit from more coherent positions and more effective advocacy, whether in settlement negotiations, administrative proceedings, or federal court.
Representative pending litigation matters in which Verdant attorneys are counsel include:
Diamond Vogel, Inc. v. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, No. A-1-CA-43483 (N.M. Ct. App., filed May 22, 2026) (PFAS labeling requirements for consumer products); and
Coalition for Fair Aerosol Regulation v. EPA, No. 25-1094 (D.C. Cir., filed March 18, 2025) (compliance deadlines for updated Aerosol Coatings National VOC Emission Standards).
A partial list of federal court opinions in which Verdant attorneys are listed as counsel includes:
Okla. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (air quality NSR rules for tribal lands);
Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. v. MSHA, 476 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (MSHA diesel standards);
Chamber of Argentine-Paraguayan Producers of Quebracho Extract v. Holder, 332 F.Supp 43 (D.D.C. 2004) (enjoining National Defense Stockpile sales); aff’d, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32399 (D.C. Cir. May 19, 2006);
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (CWA jurisdiction); and
American Water Works Assn. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (lead drinking water standard).

California Barred from Enforcing Prop 65 DEA Warning After First Amendment Challenge
/in California, Cosmetic Products, Prop. 65, Regulatory LitigationFIFRA Preempts Label-Based Failure-to-Warn Claims, Supreme Court Rules
/in EPA, FIFRA, Pesticides, Regulatory LitigationNew Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule Faces Appeal Over Free Speech, Agency Authority
/in PFAS, Regulatory Litigation, Right-to-Know, State Policy