The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

March 16th, 2026

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the March 2026 issue of Ocean and Coastal Case Alert. The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management. (NSGLC-26-03-03)


Download Case Alert

  • FIRST CIRCUIT

  • Maine
    Gray Yarmouth Rd. Solar LLC v. Me. Pub. Utilities Comm'n, No. 1:25-CV-00592-SDN, 2026 WL 445780 (D. Me. Feb. 17, 2026).
  • Over 140 organizations involved in community solar development sued the Maine Public Utilities Commission and its officers over the implementation of Maine law LD 1777, which allows a monthly charge on community solar developers participating in the state’s Net Energy Billing (NEB) Program. The NEB Program was designed to encourage small-scale renewable energy generation by allowing participants to receive a credit on their electric bill for energy supplied to the grid. The program was expanded in 2019 to include larger community solar generators, which led to increased costs for ratepayers. LD 1777 was enacted to address rising costs through a “project charge” on those participating in the NEB Program. The plaintiffs sought an injunction of the law, alleging that it resulted in an unconstitutional taking. The court declined to issue the preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.


    Opinion Here


  • Massachusetts
    Conservation Law Found. v. Barnstable, Mass., No. 24-CV-11886-ADB, 2026 WL 471866 (D. Mass. Feb. 19, 2026).
  • Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. (CLF) sued to curb nitrogen discharge from a wastewater treatment facility owned and operated by the Town of Barnstable into the Lewis Bay Watershed system without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. CLF moved to add four state law claims. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found the claims could be added, as they were within supplemental jurisdiction, timely, and not futile.


    Opinion Here


  • FIFTH CIRCUIT

    Louisiana
    Healthy Gulf v. Sec'y, La. Dep't of Nat. Res., 2025-551, 2026 WL 601956 (La. App. 3 Cir. March 4, 2026).
  • A Louisiana appellate court affirmed the Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management's (OCM) issuance of two coastal use permits for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. Environmental groups challenged the permits, arguing OCM failed to properly consider the environmental impacts, alternative project sites, and the impact on fishermen and aquatic resources. The appellate court rejected these claims and concluded that OCM acted reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing the permits.


    Opinion Here


  • Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Nguyen, 2025-00827 2026 WL 632408 (La. March 6, 2026).
  • The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling concluding that the Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal (Port) District’s attempt to take twenty-nine acres of vacant land violated the Louisiana Constitution because it did not satisfy the public purpose requirement for taking private property. The property was part of a larger 630-acre liquefied natural gas (LNG) and container port complex known as the Delta LNG Project. The Port sought to acquire the property to lease it to Venture Global LNG for development of the project. The Port argued the taking was permissible because the land would remain publicly owned and the project would facilitate the transportation of goods in domestic and international commerce. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected these arguments, finding the expropriation was not for a valid public purpose because the property would be leased for the exclusive use of a private company. The court emphasized that Louisiana’s constitution prohibits takings primarily for private entities, even where economic development or tax revenue may result.


    Opinion Here


  • SIXTH CIRCUIT

    Lucas Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, No. 25-3609, 2026 WL 657373 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026).
  • Several agricultural industry groups and a separate coalition sought to intervene as defendants in litigation challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of Ohio’s phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Maumee River and connected waterways. The federal district court denied the motion and the groups appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Sixth Circuit held that the agricultural associations overcame the presumption that their interests would be represented by the defendants and were entitled to intervene because they intended to raise distinct arguments from the government. However, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention to the coalition, finding the coalition did not overcome the presumption of adequate representation.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, No. 23-2946, 2026 WL 587981 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2026).
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), thus requiring the EPA to conduct nationwide consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) before issuing certain nationwide water quality recommendations. An environmental group challenged EPA’s 2016 water quality recommendations for cadmium, arguing the agency violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to consult with the FWS and NMFS. The district court agreed, finding EPA’s publication of the recommendations to be an agency action that may affect listed species and therefore required consultation. On appeal, EPA argued the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the recommendations did not require consultation. The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments, holding the plaintiff had standing because its members showed concrete and imminent injuries tied to listed species, and the EPA’s recommendations did require consultation because they functioned as a powerful regulatory default that could foreseeably affect state water quality standards and protected species.


    Opinion Here


  • Oregon
    Nat’l Wildlife Fed. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., D. Or., No. 3:01-cv-00640 (D. Or. Feb. 25, 2026).
  • The National Wildlife Federation, with various fishing organizations, the state of Oregon, and the Spokane and Coeur D’Alene tribes sued the National Marine Fisheries Service and others to enjoin operations of hydropower dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers to protect endangered salmon populations. The court issued the injunction, noting that the salmon faced a “dire and immediate threat” to their continued survival as an endangered species. The court ordered the federal government to operate the dam in a way that is least harmful to salmon populations and to implement emergency conservation measures for the most vulnerable populations.


    Opinion Here


  • Nat’l Ass'n of Wholesale Distrib. v. Feldon, No. 25-cv-1334-SI (D. Or. Feb 6, 2026).
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act against an association and its members pending trial. The law requires producers of packaging, food ware, and paper sold in Oregon to join a state-run recycling system. The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), an association of wholesale distributors, sought the injunction, arguing the law was unconstitutional under state and federal law. The court dismissed most of NAW’s claims but granted the injunction under the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process claims.


    Opinion Here


  • ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

    Georgia
    Davis v. Vill. Creek Landing, LLC, No. CV 223-051, 2026 WL 510801 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2026).
  • Residents filed a lawsuit against Village Creek Landing (VCL) alleging violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to unauthorized discharge of dredge and fill material into jurisdictional wetlands without a permit, noncompliance with CWA § 401, and failure to implement and maintain best management practices for erosion and sediment control. The court granted VCL's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that VCL performed or was responsible for the work causing the alleged CWA violations. The court also found that the disputed parcel of land was not part of the VCL property and so could not be relevant to the suit.


    Opinion Here

Subscribe to the Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management.

Subscribe to the Case Alert

Case Alert Archive

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2026 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 | Problems?   Webmaster | |