Daryl Joseffer
Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Published
July 11, 2025
Fighting and winning in the courts is one of the most impactful ways the U.S. Chamber of Commerce delivers for the American business community, and no group is more successful than our Litigation Center. We just wrapped up another Supreme Court term that saw continued advances in our efforts to rein in federal regulators and limit government micromanagement.
We’re highlighting three of the 12 victories that the Litigation Center helped secure for members in the past term. These favorable outcomes were in environmental cases, but their impact promises to benefit the entire business community. Together, these decisions will lead to clearer and more predictable regulations, reduce compliance costs, and make it easier for businesses to challenge harmful government actions in court.
Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA
In Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, the Court held that fuel producers could challenge EPA’s approval of California regulations restricting the production of gas-powered vehicles. This ruling confirmed that businesses generally have standing to challenge agency actions that will predictably harm them, even if the action does not directly regulate them.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., the Court curbed expansion of federal agency obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It held that agencies need to address only the environmental effects of the project at issue, not the effects of upstream or downstream projects. This ruling should help reduce delays and uncertainties around the permitting process, paving the way for essential infrastructure projects.
City and County of San Francisco v. EPA
In City and County of San Francisco v. EPA, the Court prohibited EPA from imposing liability on Clean Water Act permit holders through generic, end-run conditions outside a permit holder’s control, like the overall quality of a public body of water. The Court’s decision limits EPA’s authority to impose specific, defined requirements on permit holders. The ruling should reduce litigation and provide greater compliance certainty for businesses.
Looking Ahead
Beyond our Supreme Court practice, the Litigation Center is the preeminent legal advocate for the business community. Over the past year, we’ve secured victories in our lawsuits against the FTC, EPA, NLRB, CFPB, and prudential bank regulators—and we’re working cooperatively with the leadership of several agencies to favorably resolve suits against rules from the prior Administration.
As hostile states step up their regulatory efforts to fill perceived gaps, we’re also scaling our lawsuits against states to eliminate regulatory burdens and deter other states from enacting copycat regulations. We currently have five lawsuits pending against state overreach, with more to come.
Learn more about the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.
About the author
Daryl Joseffer
Daryl Joseffer is executive vice president and chief counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In this role, Joseffer handles a variety of litigation matters for the Chamber. He has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens of appeals in other courts across the country.
