In February 2025, newly installed EPA leadership sought and obtained orders from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals staying pending legal challenges to two key rulemaking actions by the former administration: the setting of Maximum Contaminant Levels for six PFAS in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the listing of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. These legal challenges were previously discussed in the updates below, dated June 10, 2024 (SDWA case) and July 29, 2024 (CERCLA case).

EPA recently filed an unopposed motion in each case to hold the litigation in abeyance for 60 days (available here (February 7 request in SDWA case) and here (February 11 request in CERCLA case)). In the SDWA case, the motion stated that “a new administration took office on January 20, 2025. There is now new leadership at EPA. That new leadership is in the process of familiarizing itself with the issues presented in this case and related litigation.” In the CERCLA case, the motion included a similar but not identical rationale: “With the change in administration on January 20, 2025, there is new EPA leadership. EPA needs time to brief new administration officials about this case and the underlying rule. To provide new leadership with time to familiarize themselves with these issues and determine how to proceed, [abeyance is being requested].” In both cases, EPA argued that abeyance was legally warranted, as “courts have long recognized that agencies may generally review and, if appropriate, revise their past decisions,” and “courts routinely grant stays or abeyance in circumstances like those presented here where a new administration seeks to review prior actions. . . . It is possible that after its review, EPA could take further action that may obviate the need for judicial resolution of some or all of the disputed issues.” The court granted both motions and ordered the cases held in abeyance.

Given these motions, as well as recent decisions by new EPA leadership to reverse major regulatory actions taken by prior administrations, it is highly likely that the two PFAS-related rulemakings at issue will not survive, either via EPA refusing to defend the pending actions, or otherwise agreeing to rescind the regulations.