PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, TX, VT, WA

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Subscribe
Previous Issues

Michigan Allowed to Pursue AFFF Claims in State Court

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to allow Michigan’s suit against a commercial airport for alleged PFAS contamination to proceed in state, rather than federal, court. The suit alleges that the Gerald R. Ford Airport Authority should be responsible for cleanup costs for releases and discharges of PFAS associated with the use of AFFF. The airport had sought to remove the case to federal multidistrict litigation, arguing that it was “acting under” a federal officer and citing to Federal Aviation Authority requirements for AFFF. The Sixth Circuit noted that this was the airport’s second attempt to remove the case based on the “acting under” theory, and that the law of the case barred the airport from relitigating the issue.

June 30, 2026 | Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy v. Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority, No. 24-1734 (6th Cir.).

Chemical Manufacturer Settles Federal Clean Water Act Suit

Chemical manufacturer Chemours entered into a $450 million settlement with the federal government for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and other federal laws related to alleged PFAS discharges in West Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey. Under the settlement, Chemours will be required to bring its facilities into compliance with its NPDES permits; complete treatment projects to lower PFAS concentrations in its wastewater, stormwater, and groundwater; test drinking water; offer alternative water supplies to nearby communities; and more. Chemours has also agreed to pay $22.5 million in civil penalties for the alleged violations. The proposed settlement has been lodged with the Southern District of West Virginia and will undergo a 30-day comment period. Parallel suits brought by West Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey in their state courts remain in place.

June 24, 2026 | United States v. Chemours Co., No. 2:26-cv-00418 (S.D. W. Va.).

North Carolina Community Seeking PFAS Remediation at County Landfill

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed a citizen suit on behalf of a North Carolina community group seeking to require Robeson County to abate PFAS groundwater contamination from a county-owned landfill. The suit also alleges that the county-owned public water facility is sourcing public drinking water from the contaminated groundwater, allegedly putting human health and the environment at risk. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the county’s disposal and handling of solid waste present an imminent and substantial danger. It also seeks an injunction requiring the county to clean up the allegedly contaminated groundwater, suspend use of the water facility until PFAS have been confirmed to be removed from the treated water, and provide alternative water supplies to local residents if needed.

June 16, 2026 | St. Pauls Community Association for Progress v. Robeson County, North Carolina, No. 7:26-cv-00251(E.D.N.C.).

Tenth Circuit Keeps Air Force Challenge to New Mexico Law in Federal Court

The Tenth Circuit has ruled that the U.S. Air Force’s challenge to New Mexico’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting requirements may proceed in federal, rather than state, court. The Air Force sued the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) in federal court asserting that its hazardous-waste law exceeds the regulatory authority granted to the state under RCRA, after NMED sought to hold the Air Force responsible for AFFF-related PFAS contamination at Cannon Air Force Base. NMED had argued that RCRA’s sovereign-immunity waiver subjects federal entities to state procedural requirements for management of hazardous waste and that state court jurisdiction is one such procedural requirement. While the district court agreed with NMED, the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that state judicial review provisions are not procedural requirements under RCRA.

June 16, 2026 | United States v. New Mexico Environment Department, No. 22-2132 (10th Cir.).

Fourth Circuit Reverses PFAS Injunction

The Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction barring Chemours from discharging more HFPO-DA, one type of PFAS, from its Washington Works facility into the Ohio River than its Clean Water Act (CWA) permit allows. The Fourth Circuit first held that the plaintiff, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, had shown a substantial likelihood of Article III associational standing through member Charlise Robinson, who avoided boating in the river because of Chemours’s alleged permit violations. According to the Fourth Circuit, that decision to avoid boating was an injury in fact, traceable to the discharges, and redressable by an injunction. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court’s irreparable-harm analysis was flawed. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that the district court’s analysis improperly weighed alleged public harm, presumed harm from a CWA violation, and relied on expert testimony showing only increased risk rather than harm that was more likely than not. Because Robinson did not drink or cook with her tap water, the finding of harm was clearly erroneous, and the injunction was vacated.

June 3, 2026 | West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc. v. Chemours Co. FC LLC, No. 25-1924 (4th Cir.).