Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Lee Zeldin

── Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Lee Zeldin ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 21, 2025 Decided May 1, 2026 No. 24-5294 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, APPELLANTS v. LEE M. ZELDIN, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, APPELLEES INHANCE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, INTERVENOR Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:24-cv-02194) Robert M. Sussman argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Paula Dinerstein. Christopher Anderson, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief  2 were Adam R.F. Gustafson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert N. Stander, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Stockman, Attorney. Jessica L. Ellsworth argued the cause for intervenor in support of appellees. With her on the brief were J. Tom Boer, Susan M. Cook, Marlan Golden, and J. Andrew Mackenzie. Catherine E. Stetson entered an appearance. Before: PILLARD and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS. EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves an action under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., filed in the District Court by Appellants, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”) and Center for Environmental Health (“CEH”), against the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Appellants allege that EPA has failed in its responsibilities under TSCA to address risks associated with perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”), one of a class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. Appellants’ complaint focuses on TSCA section 4(f), id. § 2603(f), which requires EPA to “initiate applicable action” within 180 days of receiving information “which indicates to the [agency] that there may be a reasonable basis to conclude that a chemical substance or mixture presents a significant risk of serious or widespread harm to human beings.” Appellants allege that EPA possessed damning information regarding the risks of PFOA by March 29, 2023 and that the information was  3 sufficient to trigger the agency’s obligation to act under section 4(f). In the alternative, Appellants invoke TSCA section 7(a)(2), id. § 2606(a)(2), to argue that EPA has a nondiscretionary duty to bring an enforcement action to abate an imminent hazard posed by PFOA generated by Appellee- Intervenor Inhance Technologies, LLC (“Inhance”), a company engaged in the fluorination process. The District Court dismissed the case for two principal reasons. First, the court held that EPA had fulfilled any nondiscretionary duty under section 4(f) by publishing a request for comment, rendering Appellants’ primary claim moot. See Pub. Emps. for Env’t Resp. v. Regan, 2024 WL 5075828, at *4-5 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2024). Second, the court expressed skepticism that section 7(a)(2) imposes on EPA a nondiscretionary duty to bring an enforcement action, and, even if it did, the court found that duty had not been triggered. Id. at *5-6. The District Court thus concluded that Appellants’ claim “falls outside the terms of . . . TSCA’s citizen-suit provision.” Id. at *6. We affirm, but on grounds different from those relied upon by the District Court. On the record before us, we conclude that the complaint filed by PEER and CEH must be dismissed because Appellants have failed to establish that they have associational standing upon which PEER and CEH rely in pursuing t