New Mexico Legalizes Medical Use of Psilocybin
On April 7, 2025, New Mexico became the third state to legalize psilocybin (colloquially known as “magic mushrooms” or “shrooms”) for medical purposes. New Mexico is the first state to legalize psilocybin via legislation and not a ballot initiative, like its predecessors Colorado and Oregon.
Quick Hits
On April 7, 2025, New Mexico became the third state to legalize access to psilocybin, following Colorado and Oregon.
Employers are not required to accommodate employees under the influence of psilocybin at work.
Under the new law—the “Medical Psilocybin Act”—the following qualifying conditions are listed as eligible for psilocybin treatment: “(1) major treatment-resistant depression; (2) post-traumatic stress disorder; (3) substance use disorders; (4) end-of-life care.” The law also allows the New Mexico Department of Health to promulgate regulations that would add qualifying conditions to that list.
New Mexico’s secretary of health has been tasked with establishing a “medical psilocybin advisory board,” to consist of nine members who have knowledge of the medical use of psilocybin. At least one member must be a member of an Indian nation, one must be a behavioral health advocate, and another must be “a representative of the health care authority.” The law also establishes a research fund to allow New Mexico state universities to research additional medical benefits of psilocybin. Finally, the law establishes an “equity fund” which allows for qualified patients who meet certain income requirements to receive psilocybin treatment.
A key takeaway for employers is that the law does not create a private cause of action for violations of its provisions. Thus, as of now, an employee cannot sue an employer for failing to accommodate his or her medical use of psilocybin. However, underlying Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims could arise from failing to accommodate an employee’s use of psilocybin.
It is likely to take a few years for the psilocybin program to be fully operational. (The law requires the program to be implemented by December 31, 2027.) However, in the meantime, employers in New Mexico may want to review their drug testing and accommodations policies with regard to medical psilocybin for qualified patients. As a reminder, employers are not required to accommodate employees who are under the influence of psilocybin while at work.
Launch of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed the executive order titled, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. As discussed previously, that order, among other things, directed the Attorney General to identify (a) means “to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,” (b) litigation and potential regulatory action that can be taken, and (c) no more than nine civil investigations that can be initiated into public companies, “large non-profit corporations, . . . foundations with” more than 500 million in assets, medication associations, and other entities.
Following that executive order, Attorney General Bondi released a memo titled, Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., the Attorney General noted that DEI and DEIA policies “violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws.” She directed the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector.” Bondi noted that the DOJ is focused on “programs, initiatives, or policies that discriminate, exclude, or divide individuals based on race or sex.” Conversely, Bondi clarified that federal civil rights laws do “not prohibit educational, cultural, or historical observances . . . that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exclusion or discrimination.”
The federal government has taken a number of steps to implement these directives. For example, the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights have initiated multiple DEI-related investigations. Similarly, various federal agencies have taken steps to remove DEI mandates from contracts. The federal government has also cancelled certain contracts in response to President Trump’s executive order.
On May 19, the DOJ took another step to effectuate the current administration’s DEI-related directives. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche released a memo detailing the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (Initiative). In the memo, Blanche echoed the DOJ’s commitment “to enforcing federal civil rights laws and ensuring equal protection under the law.” Blanche cautioned that several companies are still using “racist policies and preferences” that are “camouflaged with cosmetic changes that disguise their discriminatory nature.”
To achieve the current administration’s DEI-related goals, Blanche explained that the DOJ would vigorously use the False Claims Act (FCA) “against those who defraud the United States by taking its money while knowingly violating civil rights laws.” Among other things, Blanche explained that the treble damage and substantial penalties available under the FCA will be helpful tools in this enforcement initiative.
Blanche provided several examples of situations that could trigger FCA liability. Those include:
A university receiving federal funding while permitting antisemitism, failing to “protect Jewish students,” allowing “men to intrude into women’s bathrooms,” or requiring “women to compete against men in” sports; and
Recipients of federal funding or government contractors certifying compliance with federal civil rights laws while using “racist preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”
The Initiative will be led by the Fraud Section and the Civil Rights Division. In addition, an Assistant United States Attorney from each U.S. Attorney’s Office will be tasked to support the Initiative. The Initiative will also meet and share information with the Criminal Division, other federal agencies, state attorneys general, and local law enforcement. Blanche “strongly” encouraged private parties to file FCA lawsuits to address civil rights fraud and also asked that “anyone with knowledge of discrimination by federal-funding recipients” report that information to the federal government.
The Civil Division reported that it recovered more than $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2024 for FCA-related settlements and judgments. If the Initiative is successful in using the FCA, companies should expect a significant increase in the risks stemming from their DEI-related efforts. So, companies (especially those who receive federal funding or otherwise work with the federal government) should ensure they have taken the necessary reviews of their DEI-related initiatives. All signs indicate that this will not be the last action taken by the federal government in this sector. It is thus essential that companies remain abreast of developments in this area, including guidance from the federal government concerning what constitutes illegal DEI programs and policies.
Maryland Becomes Sixth State to Enact Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility, Washington Expected to Follow
Introduction
On May 13, 2025, Maryland became the sixth state to enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws for paper and packaging material. Washington is poised to become the seventh. In Washington, the bill has passed the House and Senate, needing only the signature of Gov. Ferguson to become law. These bills have the potential to dramatically alter how businesses operate within the state.
EPR laws are regulatory frameworks that assign producers the responsibility for the end-of-life management of their products. Producers are typically the manufacturers, brand owners, licensees, importers, and/or distributors of the product.
In addition to Maryland, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon enacted EPR programs for packaging. These laws require producers to fund their discarded products’ collection, sorting, and recycling. Producers typically achieve this by joining and paying fees to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), which develops a program implementation plan. These laws also require producers to report on the quantity and type of packaging material brought into the state, and to pay fees set by the PRO. Each state law varies slightly with respect to reporting deadlines, exemptions, the obligated entity, covered materials, and the fee structure. For a more detailed analysis of the producer obligations in these states, please refer to B&D’s client alert. Both Maryland’s and Washington’s bills generally follow the framework of the enacted state laws.
Maryland
Covered Materials
Maryland’s EPR bill, SB 901, passed the General Assembly on April 7, 2025, and Governor Moore signed it into law on May 13, 2025. The bill defines “covered materials” as packaging and paper products sold, offered for sale, imported, or distributed in the State. The bill contains limited exemptions, including packaging for infant formula, and packaging used to contain hazardous or flammable products.
Packaging: The bill defines covered “packaging” as a material, substance, or object used to protect, contain, transport, serve, or facilitate the delivery of a product that is sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, non-commercial use. This definition includes primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging and service packaging such as carry-out bags, bulk good bags, take-out and home delivery food service packaging, and beverage containers with a volume of less than 5 liters.
Paper Products: The bill defines covered “paper products” as “products made primarily from wood pulp or other cellulosic fibers.” This definition excludes bound books and products not accepted by materials recycling facilities or composting facilities due to the unsafe or unsanitary nature of the product.
Obligated Producers
The bill includes a hierarchical definition of obligated “producers” in terms of the type of covered material and the company’s relationship to the material when it is sold, distributed, or otherwise used in Maryland. Similar to enacted EPR laws in other states, Maryland’s bill largely obligates the brand owner of the product sold in product packaging. The obligations apply to both products sold at a physical retail location in Maryland, and products sold or distributed via e-commerce. Producers are exempt if they have introduced less than one ton of covered material into the State or, earned global gross revenues of less than $2 million in their most recent fiscal year.
Key Dates and Deadlines for Obligated Producers
July 1, 2026:
Producers must file a registration form with the Department
April 1, 2027:
Producers must submit their initial producer responsibility plan to the Department
July 1, 2028:
Producers must submit an updated or revised producer responsibility plan to the Department
July 1, 2029:
Producers must report annually to the Department
Selection of PRO
Though the needs assessment required by SB 222, Maryland selected the Circular Action Alliance as their PRO in October 2023
Start of Producer Obligations
Producers must reimburse local governments for the costs per ton of collecting, transporting, and processing recyclable or compostable packaging materials. The reimbursement percentage, based on the cost per ton, increases over time as follows:
50% by July 1, 2028;
75% by July 1, 2029;
90% by July 1, 2030.
Washington
Covered Materials
Washington’s EPR bill, SB 5284, passed the state legislature on April 14, 2025. The bill defines “covered materials” as packaging and paper products introduced into Washington state.
Packaging: The bill broadly defines “packaging” as “a material, substance, or object that used to protect, contain, transport, serve, or facilitate delivery of a product and that is sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, noncommercial use.” Exclusions are similar to those in the Maryland bill, including packaging for infant formula or hazardous products.
Paper Products: “A material, substance, or object that is used to protect, contain, transport, serve, or facilitate delivery of a product and that is sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, noncommercial use.” This definition excludes bound books, conservation- and archival-grade paper, newspapers (including supplements or enclosures), and magazines with a circulation of fewer than 95,000. The definition includes content derived from primary sources related to news or current events, copy paper, paper for use in building construction, and paper that can be reasonably anticipated to become unsafe or unsanitary to handle.
Obligated Producers
At a high level, any company that sells, distributes, or imports products with packaging can be subject to Washington’s EPR bill, provided the company does not meet a statutory exception. The EPR bill also applies to companies that sell, publish, or own/license brands or trademarks of paper products.
Similar to Maryland and other states with enacted EPR laws, Washington’s bill includes a tiered definition of “producer” that typically obligates the brand owner of the item sold in covered packaging and applies to packaging for items sold or distributed both at physical retail locations and online. The bill exempts producers who, in their most recent fiscal year, introduced less than one ton of covered materials into Washington with a global gross revenue (not including on-premises alcohol sales) for the prior fiscal year of less than $5 million.
Key Dates and Deadlines for Obligated Producers
March 1, 2026
Producers must register with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
PROs must register with Ecology
July 1, 2026,
Producers must be a member of a PRO or register as a PRO that will implement an individual plan
September 1, 2026
PROs must make a one-time payment to Ecology, in an amount determined by Ecology, to cover program costs through June 30, 2027
March 31, 2027 and annually thereafter
Ecology must determine the total annual registration fee paid by each PRO that is adequate to cover, but not exceed, the costs to implement, administer, and enforce the program
October 1, 2028 and every five years thereafter
PRO must submit a draft plan to Ecology that describes the proposed operation of the program
March 1, 2029
Producers that have not registered with a PRO or are not acting as an independent PRO may not introduce covered material into Washington
What Should I Do?
Product manufacturers, brand owners, and retailers should conduct a legal analysis to evaluate whether they meet the definition of “producer” under the Washington and Maryland frameworks. Obligated producers should conduct supply chain analyses to determine the extent to which they sell covered products and register with the PRO by the deadlines listed above. Producers should also prepare to comply with reporting obligations.
DOJ’s Smallest Largest Priority: Pangolins
Federal wildlife trafficking and animal cruelty enforcement is alive and well even as the Trump administration re-allocates U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) resources. At first blush, enforcing wildlife trafficking crimes may not seem like a priority for the Administration. However, recent publicity, driven in particular by a new streaming documentary featuring the pangolin, and the potential for wildlife trafficking crimes to intersect with the Administration’s publicly-stated Border enforcement priorities will result in an increased focus on Lacey Act prosecutions.
Legal Framework
The primary statute involved in wildlife crime enforcement is the Lacey Act, though other statutes have relevant criminal provisions. The Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, certain exotic animals and plants. It applies not just to live plants and animals but also to deceased. Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.
The Administration’s Current Wildlife Crimes Policies
Multiple agencies within the Trump administration continue to tout their commitment to enforcing wildlife crimes. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) notes on its website that it “remains steadfast in its commitment to combat wildlife trafficking and the illegal trade of natural resources.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) states that it investigates crimes related to a variety of environmental statutes, including Lacey Act Enforcement. So far in 2025, DOJ has brought criminal charges and obtained guilty pleas in crimes including trafficking sperm whale teeth and bones, importing spider monkeys, illegally purchasing snakes, and trafficking bird mounts.
Enforcement Trends and Notable Cases
While wildlife trafficking crimes can be standalone charges, they are often brought as part of more complex cases, including cases more closely aligned with the Trump administration’s publicly stated policy goals involving the Border.
Most notably, wildlife trafficking charges often accompany investigations and cases against transnational criminal smuggling organizations. In 2020, during the first Trump administration, DOJ indicted 12 defendants and two businesses for crimes related to, among other things, conspiracy to circumvent wildlife trafficking laws. The alleged conduct included laundering money gained from illegal wildlife trafficking. This investigation, named Operation Apex, resulted in federal agents seizing more than $3.9 million in cash, $4 million in precious metals and gemstones, multiple firearms, drugs, and tons of animal products, including shark fins and fish bladders. Officials lauded the investigation not just for its effect on protecting wildlife but also for its impact on transnational criminal organizations. In the era where transnational criminal organizations are the target of the current Trump administration, wildlife trafficking investigation and enforcement may be an option for targeting individuals who are members of these organizations.
Other criminal charges like conspiracy, obstruction, perjury, drug, and firearm crimes are routinely brought alongside Lacey Act cases or independently in cases that may appear to look like wildlife trafficking cases. For example, one woman pled guilty to two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction following an investigation into her treatment of a pet chimpanzee. Where there is an investigation into conduct that may implicate the Lacey Act, parties should also be aware of the potential for these other types of criminal statutes to be in play.
Public sentiment may also fuel increased prioritization of enforcing wildlife trafficking and related crimes. Pangolins, the most trafficked mammal in the world, were just the subject of a popular documentary. And this documentary is not alone in shining a light on wildlife trafficking. Cultural phenomena like Tiger King and Chimp Crazy have similarly captured the public’s attention and led to an outcry regarding the treatment of animals.
The Administration also continues to enforce not just wildlife trafficking crimes but related crimes, including animal cruelty and the distribution of videos depicting violent and obscene acts against animals. Statements from top officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel on a recent animal cruelty case may signal the Administration’s focus on animal rights as a priority.
Individuals and companies should be aware of the implications associated with importing, exporting, and transporting materials that could implicate the Lacey Act or other wildlife crime enforcement statutes.
EPA Announces Plans to Revisit Certain PFAS Drinking Water Standards
Two weeks after U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Zeldin outlined the agency’s PFAS plan in broad strokes, EPA provided more detail on how it intends to proceed with respect to drinking water standards for certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances PFAS. On May 14, 2025, EPA announced that it will “keep the current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)” but intends “to rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of these three plus PFBS.” Under the Biden administration, EPA set the NPDWRs, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) each for PFOA and PFOS, 10 ppt each for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA, and a Hazard Index of 1 for a combination of two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. The PFAS NPDWR was the first time EPA used a Hazard Index as a regulatory standard for drinking water.
EPA also announced “its intent to extend compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS, establish a federal exemption framework, and initiate enhanced outreach to water systems, especially in rural and small communities, through EPA’s new PFAS OUTreach Initiative (PFAS OUT).” EPA’s new PFAS OUT program is targeted at public water utilities “known to need capital improvements to address PFAS in their systems.” EPA stated it plans to extend the current 2029 deadline to comply with the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS to 2031. EPA has not elaborated on what it means by “a federal exemption framework,” but the announcement referred to drinking water systems as “passive receivers,” a phrase that EPA and others have used in talking about potential exclusions from CERCLA’s liability scheme.
EPA plans to accomplish these regulatory changes by publishing a proposed rule this fall, with an expected final rule in spring 2026. It is unclear whether the proposed extension of the compliance date will be included in the proposed rule or will be a separate action by the agency. Stakeholders should watch for the proposed rule’s publication and submit comments during the public comment period.
In the meantime, litigation regarding the PFAS NPDWR remains pending in the D.C. Circuit. On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice requested an additional 21 days to decide how to proceed.
More PFAS-related announcements are expected from EPA as the agency provides more detail regarding the items identified in its April 28, 2025 PFAS plan.
PFAS Reporting Rule Deadlines Extended – and More Changes to Come
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an interim final rule on May 13, 2025, extending the reporting deadlines for its Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Reporting Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 705, which mandates submission of data on PFAS. EPA also disclosed that it will soon publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to address other aspects of the rule. The new deadlines appear in amended 40 C.F.R. § 705.20. Most reports on PFAS as chemicals are now due by October 13, 2026. Reports on PFAS in imported articles by small manufacturers are now due by April 13, 2027.
Background
EPA finalized the PFAS Reporting Rule on October 11, 2023, under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by Section 7351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. 116-92. This rule obligates any entity that manufactured or imported PFAS from 2011 through 2022 to submit a one-time report to EPA regarding manufacturing, use, disposal, byproducts, worker exposures, and environmental and health effects of those PFAS. The initial deadline for most submissions was set for May 8, 2025, providing an 18-month reporting window from the rule’s effective date. For article importers qualifying as small manufacturers, the reporting deadline was November 10, 2025.
In September 2024, EPA extended the original reporting deadline by eight months, until January 11, 2026. Under the May 13, 2025 interim final rule, that deadline is extended by another nine months, requiring most manufacturers to submit their reports by October 13, 2026. Under the September 2024 rule, for article importers that are also small manufacturers, EPA extended the deadline to July 11, 2026. In the May 13 rule, that deadline is now April 13, 2027.
Analysis
This extension presumably gives EPA time to finalize its information-collection software. The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extension Act, 2025, Public Law 119-4 (the Continuing Resolution signed by President Trump on March 15, 2025) increased EPA’s appropriation for environmental programs and management by $17 million over the appropriation for Fiscal Year 2024, to $3.195 billion. According to a House Appropriations Committee report, the purpose of the increase was “to modernize the Environmental Protection Agency’s IT system to more efficiently complete chemical reviews, as requested by the Administration.” The extra money will help EPA handle the expected influx of reporting under the PFAS reporting rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 705.
The extension also gives EPA time to decide whether to reopen other portions of the PFAS Reporting Rule for public comment. The interim rule comes after the April 28, 2025, PFAS action plan announcement in which EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin committed to implement Section 8(a)(7) in order “to smartly collect necessary information, as Congress envisioned and consistent with TSCA, without overburdening small businesses and article importers” (see B&D’s alert here). It also follows a May 2, 2025, Section 21 petition from a coalition of chemical manufacturers arguing that standard TSCA exemptions for articles and impurities, a production-volume threshold, and other scope limitations should apply. We expect the proposed rule to incorporate at least some of those requested provisions.
While the delay to the start of the submission period is effective immediately, EPA will accept public comments on the revised reporting timeframe for 30 days, with comments due by June 12, 2025. Beveridge & Diamond is actively monitoring developments in this area and is ready to assist interested stakeholders prepare comments on the interim final rule and the expected notice of proposed rulemaking.
Cal/OSHA’s Latest on Lead Exposure: Clarification for the Construction Industry
On May 5, 2025, the California Department of Industrial Relations made an important announcement that affects employers in the construction industry. Cal/OSHA has clarified lead exposure prevention guidance specific to protecting workers conducting dry abrasive blasting while performing construction work.
California’s recently amended lead standards for the construction industry went into effect on January 1, 2025 (California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 1532.1) as part of a broader effort to provide greater protection for workers from the health effects tied to lead exposure. These requirements, which are generally more protective than existing federal regulations, emphasize an increase in the use of protective measures, including substitution, engineering controls, and administrative controls.
According to Cal/OSHA’s guidance, employers must assess their workers’ exposure to lead when conducting abrasive blasting. Until the employer completes the assessment, dry abrasive blasting is currently limited to five hours a day, dropping to two hours per day in 2030. After completing the assessment, there is no time limit, but exposure must stay below the permissible regulatory limit of 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Beginning January 1, 2030, this limit drops to 10 micrograms.
Cal/OSHA directs employers to Table 1 of section 5144 to determine respirator protection factors. Using respirators can help manage lead exposure, but they must be used correctly to be effective.
DOE Announces New Wave of Energy Efficiency Rollbacks – Over a Dozen Product Types Could Be Impacted
Following the Trump administration’s previously announced commitment to “slash unnecessary red tape and regulations,” the Department of Energy (DOE) proposed a new suite of deregulatory actions that, if successful, will significantly scale back the Department’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. On May 12, 2025, DOE pre-published dozens of proposed rules in the Federal Register (with official publications scheduled for May 16, 2025) that would withdraw covered products determinations and rescind existing test procedures and energy and water conservation standards. While prior administrations, including the first Trump Administration, have sought to slow or even stop the development of new efficiency standards, until now, none have attempted to so significantly weaken or even undo final standards already in force. DOE’s deregulatory efforts will have far-reaching impacts on the companies that manufacture, import, distribute, and sell covered products, the consumers and businesses that purchase such equipment, and the utilities that rely on efficiency standards to reduce demands on the electric grid. Because Congress included a prohibition on “backsliding” in DOE’s authorizing statute, we expect consumer and environmental NGOs and potentially states to challenge these deregulatory efforts in court.
DOE is proposing to revert to statutory efficiency standards for products where the Department subsequently established its own more stringent standards via rulemaking. For example, Congress first set efficiency standards for a subset of external power supplies as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In 2014, DOE completed a rulemaking that strengthened those standards and expanded the scope of covered products. Now, DOE proposes to rescind those 2014 standards, reverting to the standard and scope set out by Congress in 2007, even though manufacturers have been complying with the more stringent standards for many years.
DOE also proposes withdrawing its previously covered product determinations for various products. Congress established certain product categories as “covered products” and empowered DOE to regulate additional product categories if it determined that regulation of those products was warranted. Once the covered products determinations are withdrawn, DOE indicates that standards and test procedures for those products will no longer apply, even where they already exist. For example, DOE is now proposing that portable air conditioners no longer be considered “covered products” under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and is removing its previously promulgated efficiency standards, which were finalized in 2020 and entered into force in January 2025. In some instances, DOE had previously determined to designate a new covered product category but had not yet finalized a water or energy efficiency standard for that product. DOE is withdrawing a number of those product determinations, meaning that it will not develop standards for those products. For example, in 2021, DOE released a final rule stating that fans and blowers were “covered equipment” and that inclusion was necessary to conserve energy resources. The Biden Administration proposed but eventually declined to finalize efficiency standards for these products. DOE is now proposing to rescind DOE’s determination classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment, which will make it more difficult and time-consuming to regulate these products in the future.
DOE has proposed to rescind efficiency standards or test procedures and/or withdraw applicability determinations for well over a dozen product categories, including
External power supplies
Air cleaners
Fans and blowers
Dehumidifiers
Commercial clothes washers
Compact residential clothes washers
Battery chargers
Automatic commercial ice makers
Commercial prerinse spray valves
Consumer furnace fans
Compressors
Miscellaneous refrigeration products
Portable air conditioners
Microwave ovens
Residential dishwashers
Faucets
Conventional ovens
Conventional cooking tops
Consumer and environmental groups repeatedly sued the first Trump administration over far more modest efforts to slow or stop appliance efficiency rulemakings. The Department’s efforts to roll back or eliminate standards and test procedures in their entirety will no doubt similarly be met with a flurry of legal challenges, primarily concerning whether they run afoul of the anti-backsliding provision of EPCA. The anti-backsliding provision specifies that DOE may not prescribe any amended standard that “increases the maximum allowable energy use . . . of a covered product.” DOE contends that rescinding a rule does not constitute prescribing an amended standard and that the provision “only prevents DOE from setting standards below the statutory maximum or minimum.”
DOE is currently requesting public comments on these proposals, which must be received on or before 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. DOE will also host a webinar to discuss the proposals on May 29, 2025. Beveridge & Diamond is actively monitoring developments in this area and is ready to assist interested stakeholders prepare comments to the proposed rules.
Private Market Talks: Destination Europe with Pemberton’s Co-Founder Symon Drake-Brockman [Podcast]
As America turns inwards, investors are turning east, towards Europe. It’s a seismic shift not seen since the end of WWII. In this episode, we talk with Symon Drake-Brockman, co-founder and Managing Partner of Pemberton Asset Management, one of Europe’s largest private credit platforms, about the implications of this shift. Prior to starting Pemberton, Symon navigated critical world events on behalf of major financial institutions, including the impact of Russia seizing Crimea, the Asian financial crisis, the Global Financial Crisis, and COVID. During our conversation, Symon helps to put current events into perspective and offers insights as to why today’s capital allocators are rediscovering Europe.
Interior Department Seeks Public Input on Repealing Public Lands and Natural Resources Rules
On May 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced its intent to solicit public input on federal regulations that may be subject to repeal or revision as part of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda. According to a notice published in the Federal Register on May 20, DOI is formally requesting feedback on “deconstructing the regulatory burden that has been self-imposed on our Nation’s interests.”
The DOI notice follows Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum’s department-wide deregulatory order in February (Secretary’s Order No. 3418). In that document, Burgum signaled an intent to prioritize revisions to regulations adopted during the Biden administration.
The new DOI notice recites recent White House directives and focuses on Executive Order 14192, which directs agencies – beginning for Fiscal Year 2026 – to identify “on an aggregated basis” new regulations that increase costs, and offsetting existing regulations that can be repealed, along with the costs and savings of each. DOI encourages the public to identify environmental and energy-related regulations that are “outdated,” “overly complex,” “burdensome,” or not consistent “with law or Administration policy.” The term “regulation” includes guidance, policies, procedures, and other administrative actions. Comments are due by June 18, and can be submitted at www.regulations.gov, by U.S. mail, or to a newly established email account that will remain active after the comment period closes. The DOI notice directs commenters to address a series of questions about existing rules, including:
Are there regulations that don’t make sense or have become unnecessary?
Are there outdated rules that could be updated?
Are there necessary regulations that don’t work well but could be improved, and/or implemented at lower cost?
Are there complex regulations that could be simplified?
Are there obstructive regulations that unnecessarily burden energy projects?
Is DOI currently collecting information from the public that it does not need?
This initiative follows multiple recent executive orders and directives from the White House declaring a “national energy emergency” and directing the agencies of the federal government to expedite domestic energy and mineral development, repeal or revise potentially unnecessary and burdensome regulations and guidance, and eliminate regulatory barriers. The Office of Management and Budget published its own notice in April seeking suggestions for government-wide regulatory reform. Efforts of this kind may be expected across the federal government or have already begun.
Stakeholders across the energy, infrastructure, and environmental sectors should carefully evaluate the potential impact of this deregulatory effort on existing and planned projects. Companies with an interest in public lands, offshore leasing, or environmental permitting should consider submitting comments and monitoring forthcoming agency rulemakings.
NLRB General Counsel Expands Paths for Settling ULP Cases, and Realigns Board Practice for Seeking Expanded Remedies (US)
The National Labor Relations Board’s top enforcement official has issued important guidance, which should make it easier for parties to settle unfair labor practice charges, and which narrows the situations where the Board will seek unique expanded remedies.
Background
From 2021 to 2024, the Board significantly changed the remedies it sought in ULP cases, and it also changed the conditions it required parties to accept in order to settle those cases. At default, the National Labor Relations Act permits the Board to seek and award “make whole” relief. This means the Board cannot, for example, award punitive damages or emotional distress damages. Historically, in cases where an employer has committed a ULP by discharging an employee, the Board typically has awarded the employee backpay and required the employer to reinstate them.
Over the past four years, however, the Board expanded the relief it seeks and awards in these cases. In late 2022, the Board held that it could compensate employees for all financial harm that “directly” or “foreseeably” stemmed from an employer’s ULP. (We covered this Thryv Inc. decision here.) For example, in a case where an employee is unlawfully discharged, this standard could entitle the employee to reimbursement for increased insurance premiums, having to purchase a new vehicle to replace an employer-provided vehicle, bank overdraft fees or relocation costs. The Board held that this relief should be standard in ULP cases.
Accordingly, former General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo instructed Board officials to actually pursue this type of relief when they prosecute ULP complaints. She also directed Board officials to require effectively any settlement agreement to reimburse an employee for such relief, and also required agreements to satisfy other new requirements in order to effectively settle ULP charges or complaints.
New Guidance for ULP Cases and Settlements
The Board’s new Acting General Counsel, William Cowen, now has revisited these issues in a way that better tracks the Board’s historical practices, and which will make it easier for parties to settle disputes. As covered here, on February 17, the Acting G.C. rescinded several of former G.C. Abruzzo’s memoranda, including the memoranda referenced above. Then, on May 16, the Acting G.C. issued new guidance to Board officials regarding these issues.
With respect to remedies, Acting G.C. Cowen directed Board officials not to automatically seek these expanded remedies in ULP cases, nor to automatically require settlement agreements to offer these remedies. Rather, he directed Board officials not to seek this expanded relief unless there has been “widespread, egregious, or severe misconduct.” He instructed Board officials to seek internal guidance before seeking novel remedies. He criticized the Thryv standard as providing inadequate guidance and directed that, in the typical case, the Board should seek damages that compensate a victim for financial harm that was “foreseeable” and has a “sufficiently clear” causal link to the ULP.
Further, regarding settlement agreements, he expanded Board officials’ discretion in several other ways that should help parties resolve far more disputes. He recognized that, between 2021 and 2024, the percent of ULP cases which did not settle more than tripled. Accordingly, he directed Board officials not to automatically seek several types of terms in settlement agreements which can often impede a resolution. For example, he authorized Board Regions to once again include non-admissions clauses in settlement agreements in appropriate cases, and that they may approve settlements who do not award a party the entire amount of relief they could have recovered. He also recognized that the Board can approve settlement agreements which the parties unilaterally negotiated, even if they did not involve the Board in those negotiations.
* * * * *
Currently, the Board is facing an increased caseload, reduced resources, and substantial uncertainty as the Board presently lacks a quorum in light of Member Gwynne Wilcox’s removal. These directives by Acting G.C. Cowen might not make major headlines, but they should help the Board manage its caseload and give parties more room to resolve disputes and avoid unnecessary litigation.
U.S.-China Lower Reciprocal Tariffs During 90-Day Negotiation Period
On May 12, 2025, the Administration agreed to lower reciprocal tariffs imposed on products of China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for 90 days to allow for further negotiations between the two countries on a formal trade deal.
The 90-day suspension reduces the 125% reciprocal tariffs imposed on April 10, 2025, on goods imported from China down to 10%. With this reduction, the baseline reciprocal tariff on goods imported from China will now be at the same reciprocal tariff rate applicable to essentially all other countries.
This 90-day pause became effective on May 14, 2025, and is anticipated to last until August 12, 2025. Following the end of the 90-day period, assuming the U.S. and China do not reach an agreement, the reciprocal tariffs are expected to increase from 10% to 34%.
It is important to note that this pause does not affect the other tariffs that are currently imposed against Chinese imports, including the 20% IEEPA-Fentanyl tariffs imposed on products of China in February and March 2025, as well as any applicable Section 301 tariffs imposed during the first Trump Administration, antidumping/countervailing duties, and general duty rates. For example, an item from China subject to 25% Section 301 tariffs would now be subject to a 55% rate taking into account the additional IEEPA-Fentanyl (20%) and reciprocal (10%) tariffs, plus any general duty rate. However, for Chinese imports subject to Sec. 232 duties for steel and aluminum products and their derivatives and automobiles and their parts, importers should carefully review Executive Order 14289’s “unstacking” provisions.