2026

Got Methane: How Cattle Diets Can Reduce Emissions.

March 2, 2026
Animal Law, Environmental Law, Industry

Henry Emmerich, MJLST Staffer

The fight against climate change is ongoing, strenuous, and full of misinformation. Critics claimed that supporters of legislation to address climate change “want to take out the cows.”[1] While this statement was false, there is some truth to the underlying idea. The cattle industry emits methane on an astronomical scale.[2]

Current Environmental Impact of Cattle

Livestock, such as cows, “produce methane (CH4) as part of their normal digestive processes. This process is called enteric fermentation, and it represents over a quarter of the emissions from the agriculture economic sector.”[3] On average, one cow “burps” 220 pounds of methane each year.[4] As of July 1, 2025, there were 94.2 million cattle on U.S. farms.[5]

Methane is the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide.[6] Pound for pound, however, methane has a warming impact eighty-six times higher than carbon dioxide.[7] Good news: methane remains in the atmosphere for only twelve years, compared to carbon dioxide which can stay in the atmosphere well beyond 300 years.[8] Methane’s strong warming effect and relatively short lifetime mean that curbing methane emissions is a potentially effective way to significantly reduce atmospheric warming within a few decades. Because methane is produced naturally during a cow’s digestive process, changing what cattle eat is a relatively straightforward means to reduce emissions from an industry that is currently the largest human-derived source of methane emissions.[9]

Climate Friendly Cattle Feed

Feed additives may reduce livestock methane emissions.[10] Red seaweed, Asparagopsis armata (AA) and Asparagopsis taxiformis (AT), are two such additives. Researchers are studying the effects of red seaweed consumption on feedlot cattle, dairy cows, and grazing cattle.[11] A 2021 study looking at feedlots operations in which cows are confined in fenced areas to maximize weight gain before slaughter found, “Cattle that consumed doses of about 80 grams (3 ounces) of seaweed gained as much weight as their herd mates while burping out 82 percent less methane into the atmosphere.”[12] In dairy cows, there was over a 50% reduction in methane emissions following the introduction of a red seaweed supplement to the cows’ diet.[13] Finally, adding red seaweed to the diet of grazing cattle reduced their methane emissions by nearly forty percent.[14] Due to the roaming nature of grazing cattle, it is difficult to create a controlled environment where a study can be easily conducted. Researchers therefore allowed the experiment group of cattle to voluntarily consume the supplement over a ten-week period.[15] If researchers develop a method to more reliably induce consumption of seaweed in grazing cattle, the effect could be even more significant.

How does AT reduce methane emissions? The effect lies in the rumen (the largest compartment of a cow’s stomach), Methanosphaera, and bromoform.[16] Methanosphaera is a microbe in the rumen that uses hydrogen to break methanol down into methane, an AT supplement led to a “near total elimination of Methanosphaera.”[17] Bromoform is a substance that is found in AT and inhibits certain enzymes utilized by Methanosphaera to produce methane.[18]

Current Legislation

While the Inflation Reduction Act allocated billions of dollars into renewable energy, lawmakers failed to meaningfully address a massive source of methane emissions: cattle.[19] The Federal government will pay farmers to voluntarily address climate change; however, most cattle eat a majority corn diet.[20] Federal regulations of animal food on prevent contamination and regulate what drugs can be included in medicated feed.[21]

States focus regulations of animal feed on informing consumers, preventing contamination, and licensing manufacturers.[22] All 50 states have some amount of cattle within their borders; however, only thirteen states account for nearly two-thirds of cattle in the United States.[23] If these thirteen states were to regulate what farmers and ranchers were feeding their cows, methane emissions would be curbed significantly. The FDA categorizes these additives as livestock drugs and must approve them prior to implementation.

Challenges Going Forward

Going forward, there are challenges to the development and eventual adoption of red seaweed or bromoform supplements being used in cattle feed. Uncertainty over how to classify products derived from red seaweed has stalled development in the United States. Bromoform is plagued by regulatory hurdles because is it classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the Environmental Protection Agency[24] In high doses bromoform can pass into the milk and meat of cows who consume it, fortunately the amount of bromoform necessary to obtain methane reduction in livestock is less than one percent of the amount which could be harmful to humans.[25]

Momentum is building; California approved funds to the development of methane inhibitors related to cattle.[26] The FDA approved a Dutch product containing 3-NOP, a less effective methane inhibitor, as a livestock drug.[27] The “Innovative FEED Act of 2025” was introduced in the House of Representatives where it currently awaits further action.[28] A federal framework would be helpful to hasten development and adoption of methane inhibitors. States, however, retain certain power over livestock feed.[29] Hopefully, collaboration between federal and state lawmakers can clear the way for massive reductions in agricultural methane emissions.

 

Notes

[1] Carlyn Kranking & Grace Rodgers, Trump Warns the Green New Deal Will ‘Take Out the Cows.’ Here’s the Science Showing Why That’s a Myth, Nw. Climate Change (Nov. 19, 2020) https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/trump-warns-the-green-new-deal-will-take-out-the-cows-heres-the-science-showing-why-thats-a-myth/.

[2] See generally Anna Obek, Comment, Cow Methane-Reduction Wearable Technology and Animal Welfare: Humane Solutions to Lessen Livestock’s Environmental Impact, 101 Or. L. Rev. 479 (2023).

[3] Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#agriculture [https://perma.cc/3325-7LY2] (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).

[4] Amy Quinton, Cows and Climate Change, UC Davis (June 27, 2019), https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable [https://perma.cc/AA7H-NEMW].

[5] USDA, United States Cattle Inventory Report (July 25, 2025), https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2025/07-25-2025.php.

[6] Climate & Clean Air Coalition, Methane, https://www.ccacoalition.org/short-lived-climate-pollutants/methane (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Methane Emissions Are Driving Climate Change. Here’s How to Reduce Them., U.N. Env’t Programme (Aug. 20, 2021), https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them.

[11] Amy Quinton, Feeding Grazing Cattle Seaweed Cuts Methane Emissions by Almost 40%, UC Davis (Dec. 2, 2024), https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/feeding-grazing-cattle-seaweed-cuts-methane-emissions-almost-40.

[12] Diane Nelson, Feeding Cattle Seaweed Reduces Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions 82 Percent, UC Davis (Mar. 17, 2021), https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent.

[13] Quinton, supra note 11.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] See id.; Erica Moser, Understanding How a Red Seaweed Reduces Methane Emissions From Cows, Penn Today (July 19, 2024), https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-vet-understanding-how-red-seaweed-reduces-methane-emissions-cows.

[17] Id.

[18] See generally Gyeltshen et al., Feeding a Bromoform-Based Feed Additive for Methane Mitigation in Beef Cattle, J. ANIMAL Feed Sci. & Tech. 326 (2025).

[19] See U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Accelerating Climate Solutions on Livestock Operations Through the Inflation Reduction Act, Usda (May 2024), https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/202405-NRCS-FactSheet-IRA_LivestockOperations.pdf.

[20] McKenzie Mak, What Do Cows Eat? Natural Diet vs. Factory Farm Feed Explained, World Animal Protection U.S. (Sept. 13, 2024), https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/latest/blogs/what-do-cows-eat/.

[21] See FDA, Animal Food Regulations, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/animal-food-regulations (last visited Feb. 25, 2026); FDA, FDA’s Regulation of Pet Food, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/fdas-regulation-pet-food (last visited Feb. 25, 2026); FDA, FDA Regulation of Medicated Feed, https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/resources-you/fda-regulation-medicated-feed (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).

[22] See e.g., Tex. Admin. Code §§ 61.001–61.019 (2019); K.S.A. “The Kansas Commercial Feeding Stuffs Law” (2011); Minn. Stat. 25.31, “Minnesota Commercial Feed Law” (2025).

[23] Rob Cook, Ranking of States with the Most Cattle, Nat’l Beef Wire, https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/ranking-of-states-with-the-most-cattle-texas-leads-the-herd (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).

[24] Swati Hegde, Cutting Cattle Methane Through Feed Additives: Lessons from Early Adoption and the Road Ahead, World Resources Institute (June 17, 2025), https://www.wri.org/technical-perspective/cattle-methane-inhibitors-early-adoption-next-steps#:~:text=Adoption%3A%20Not%20yet%20approved%20for%20use%2C%20though%20several%20pilot%20trials%20are%20underway%20in%20Australia%2C%20the%20EU%20and%20the%20U.S.

[25] Id.

[26] Colton Fagundes, Senate Resolution Introduced to Provide Principled Framework to Address Enteric Methane Emissions in California’s Dairy and Livestock Sector, Cal. Climate & Agric. Network (May 27, 2025), https://calclimateag.org/california-dairy-methane-solutions/.

[27] Id.

[28] See H.R. 2203, 199th Cong. (2025–2026).

[29] See Cook supra note 23.

Contracting Babies: The Dark Side of Surrogacy and the European Union’s Recent Condemnation of the Practice

February 23, 2026
EU Law, Health Law, Reproductive Health

Rachel King, MJLST Staffer

Introduction

In January 2026, Meghan Trainor (Trainor) took to Instagram to reveal the birth of her third child, Mikey Moon Trainor, a baby born via surrogate.[1] Surrogacy is the process in which someone (the “surrogate”) carries and delivers a child for a couple or an individual (the intended parent(s), or “IPs”).[2] This process occurs through in vitro fertilization (IVF), an assisted reproductive technology where doctors create and implant an embryo into a surrogate.[3]

Almost immediately, Trainor was met with intense criticism about the ethics of her choice, with some calling her baby “her most recent purchase,” and others commenting on Reddit: “surprise: meghan trainer [sic] is a piece of shit.”[4] Although surprising to some, this is only the most recent public uproar against the practice of surrogacy. Lily Collins, Anderson Cooper, and Kim Kardashian are other celebrities who have similarly sparked online debate about the ethics of surrogacy.[5]

History of Surrogacy

Since the practice of modern surrogacy began in the 1970s, there has been extensive debate about whether surrogacy is an ethical practice that should be condoned in any circumstance.[6] Many of these debates highlight the autonomy of the surrogates, the enforceability of surrogacy contracts, whether the benefits of surrogacy outweigh the inherent risks, and whether those risks are evenly distributed between the surrogate and the IPs.[7] These debates highlight that while surrogacy can be an incredibly positive thing for IPs, there is some discomfort in placing monetary value on the ability of a surrogate to have a healthy child. Given that the European Union (EU) recently passed a resolution condemning surrogacy, it is unlikely these debates will end any time soon.[8]

The EU Condemns Surrogacy

In November 2025, the European Parliament convened to discuss the moral and ethical implications of surrogacy following the EU’s complete condemnation of the practice earlier that month.[9] The EU’s condemnation of surrogacy was in response to a UN report which discussed the human rights violations happening as a result of the global surrogacy market. Specifically, the report highlights increased instances of human trafficking, as women across the world are lured into surrogacy agencies that keep them in confinement, confiscate passports, and force reproductive labor.[10] The report likens these practices to slavery, as these agencies exercise ownership over the surrogates’ bodies and severely limit their freedom of movement and autonomy.[11]

Surrogacy Contracts

The UN report further highlighted the issues with surrogacy contracts, which can require the surrogates to waive their right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, entitle IPs to constant surveillance over the surrogate’s life and movements, and often involve unequal bargaining power; even in the best situations.[12]

These issues are well exemplified in a story reported on by Wired about a surrogate contracted in the United States whose baby died in utero.[13] Believing the surrogate mother responsible for the baby’s passing, the IPs sued the surrogate, launched a public smear campaign against her, disclosed her private health information online, and are refusing to pay for the medical treatments she received while pregnant, causing the surrogate severe financial strain.[14] Additionally, the surrogate faces ongoing and intense trauma from her health complications and the passing of the child.

This story speaks to the fundamental imbalances in surrogacy contracts:

When a surrogate breaks contract, her IPs can stop paying her and stop paying the medical bills for her pregnancy. But if an IP breaks contract—say, by sharing their [surrogate’s] private information online or withholding compensation—a [surrogate] typically has to hire a lawyer. No matter what, IPs get the baby at the end.[15]

Although it could be debated whether these exploitative practices are present in all surrogacy arrangements, the UN report claims that no legislation nor international human rights treaties could effectively address the exploitation involved in surrogacy, arguing for a full eradication of the practice.[16]

Conclusion

It seems unlikely that the United States will follow suit in condemning the practice of surrogacy, especially since Michigan, Massachusetts, and New York have all legalized the practice within the past five years.[17] But it remains important to keep the dangers of surrogacy in mind when family planning. And although Meghan Trainor’s experience with surrogacy was clearly positive, there’s still a long way to go before it’s a safe practice for everyone.[18]

 

Notes

[1] Leyla Mohammed, After Her Third Child Announcement Sparked a Load of Discourse, Meghan Trainor has Explained Why She and Her Husband Opted for Surrogacy, BuzzFeed (Jan. 22, 2026), https://www.buzzfeed.com/leylamohammed/meghan-trainor-explains-why-she-chose-surrogacy.

[2] Surrogacy, Yale Med., https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/gestational-surrogacy.

z Id.; In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/about/pac-20384716 (last visited Feb. 20, 2026).

[4] (@Timely_Guitar_881), Reddit (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.reddit.com/r/popculture/comments/1qkmb4i/meghan_trainors_picture_lays_bare_the_cruelty_of/; Victoria Smith, Meghan Trainor’s Picture Lays Bare the Cruelty of Surrogacy, Telegraph (Jan. 23, 2026, 7:00), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/23/meghan-trainor-picture-lays-bare-the-cruelty-of-surrogacy/.

[5] Martha Gill, Sorry, Lily Collins, but When People Outsource Childbirth, Their Motives Really Count, Guardian (Feb. 8, 2025, 14:30), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/08/sorry-lily-collins-but-when-people-outsource-childbirth-their-motives-really-count; Youha Kim, Consent, Commodification, and Anderson Cooper’s Surrogacy Case, Prindle Post (June 18, 2020), https://www.prindleinstitute.org/2020/06/consent-commodification-and-anderson-coopers-surrogacy-case/;

Ali Rosen, Surrogacy is Misunderstood and Unfairly Maligned. We Need to Change the Narrative, Washington Post (Jan. 24, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2020/01/24/surrogacy-is-misunderstood-unfairly-maligned-we-need-change-narrative/.

[6] Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, The History of Surrogacy: A Legal Timeline, Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists LLC (Jan. 8, 2026), https://www.worldwidesurrogacy.org/blog/the-history-of-surrogacy-a-legal-timeline.

[7] See generally, Francoise Shenfield, et al., Ethical Considerations on Surrogacy, 40 Hum. Reprod. 420 (2025).

[8] European Parliament Resolution of 13 November 2025 on the Gender Equality Strategy 2025, Eur. Parl. Doc. 2024/2125 (INI).

[9] Experts Convene at European Parliament to Address Harms of Surrogacy, Following EU Resolution Condemning Practice, ADF Int’l (Nov. 19, 2025), https://adfinternational.org/news/experts-convene-at-european-parliament-to-address-harms-of-surrogacy#:~:text=Experts%20convene%20at%20European%20Parliament,%7C%20November%2019%2C%202025.

[10] U.N. Secretary-General, Violence Against Women and Girls, Its Causes and Consequences, U.N. Doc. A/80/158 (July 14, 2025), [hereinafter “The Report”]; Sarah A Topol, They Answered an Ad for Surrogates, and Found Themselves in a Nightmare, N.Y. Times (Dec. 14, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/14/magazine/fertility-surrogates-trafficking.html.

[11] The Report at 13–14.

[12] Id. at 11.

[13] Emi Nietfeld, The Baby Died. Whose Fault Is It?, Wired (Sept. 3, 2025, 6:00), https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/.

[14] Id.

[15] Nietfeld, supra note 13.

[16] The Report at 17–20, 22.

[17] The Best U.S. States for Surrogacy in 2026, Hatch Fertility (May 6, 2025), https://www.hatch.us/en/blog/best-states-for-surrogacy.

[18] Mohammed, supra note 1.

Legally Speaking, What Even Is a Gaming Console?

February 18, 2026
Video Games

Jacob Heimberger, MJLST Staffer

There is no shortage of ways to play Fortnite. The simplest way would be to play on a computer. If their PC meets the surprisingly reasonable system requirements to run the game, anybody could be blasting through walls and buildings as Sabrina Carpenter teamed up with Godzilla and Homer Simpson.[1] But maybe someone doesn’t own a computer that was made in the past two decades. Fortnite still has them covered. If they have gotten their hands on a relatively modern Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, or Steam Deck, they’ll be driving Dodge Ram 1500 TRXs through the K-Pop Demon Hunters as Thanos or Hatsune Miku in no time.[2] If all else fails, the average layperson could even boot up Fortnite on their iPhone or Android.[3] On a cozy Friday night, anybody can cuddle up with their smartphone and drop out of a flying bus as Spider-Man and drop directly into Darth Vader’s martial arts dojo for a quick gunfight. Epic Games has ported their hit game to as many consoles as possible, allowing gamers to access Fortnite regardless of the technology they have on hand.

However, a more pedantic gamer would likely wince at the previous sentence. iPhones and Androids are not recognized as gaming consoles, although they can actually run games.[4] PC gamers are inclined to call sacrilege on anybody who dares propose that their gaming computers are even comparable to even high-performance consoles. This could be confusing to a non-gamer, because if all of these devices can run video games, then what even is a “gaming-console”?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tried to tackle this question over twenty-five years ago in Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Bleem.[5] Here, to resolve a question of intellectual property, the court was challenged to determine what a console game market is composed of. The Ninth Circuit found “console games” distinct from other video games because they are played by loading a disk into a console which is then connected to a television.”[6] This is distinct from “computer games”, which the court defined as any game played by loading a disk into the CD drive of a computer.[7] These definitions were naive for the time, and even more so in the modern day, as games are playable on anything from a mobile to the seat screens on commercial airlines. Nintendo even released “Virtual Game Cards”, directly subverting the idea that video games require a physical disk or cartridge to be considered a console game.[8] Such a restrictive definition of gaming consoles prevents courts from properly identifying the scope of the console market, creating problems for large-scale antitrust litigation in the gaming sphere. For the sake of enforcing healthy competition in gaming markets, a more nuanced definition of a console is necessary.

A more modern legal definition for gaming consoles greatly broadened the scope of what devices may qualify. The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that physical consoles are devices that are designed for, and whose primary use is, to play video games.[9] However, certain PCs and even mobile phones are purchased for the sole purpose of playing games.[10] Despite the similarities, these devices are distinguishable from gaming consoles. Courts have found that gaming PCs typically have more advanced hardware to allow them to play more computationally demanding games.[11] Conversely, mobile games have lower levels of sophistication and graphics than PC or consoles.[12] Beyond its primary use, there seems to be a window of technological prowess that a device needs to fit into before being considered a console. It is easily inferred here that a game console is a device made with the primary purpose of playing video games, which is stronger than a mobile phone but weaker than the average gaming PC.

This is a generally satisfying definition, but a veteran gamer would recognize that a Nintendo Switch is functionally quite different from a modern Xbox or PlayStation. The Switch is portable, has its own screen, and is significantly less powerful hardware than its counterparts.[13] Differences between the three consoles does not matter. Whether a console is fully interchangeable with those of its competitors does not matter because perfect fungibility is not required.[14] Courts use the definition of consoles to help define the boundaries of the competition within video gaming markets.[15] A Nintendo Switch does not need to be replaceable by a PlayStation5 or Xbox in every respect. Rather, the relevant market encompasses the consoles and their respective companies whose presence drives competition, and whose foreclosure may disadvantage it.[16]

There is still room for improvement in this definition. The Steam Deck is functionally a computer which is in the shape of a handheld console.[17] They are widely considered to be PCs, regardless of the fact that they are made with the primary purpose of playing games and have gaming specs more comparable to high-performance gaming consoles like the Switch, Xbox, or PlayStation.[18] Despite checking every box, there is a serious contention that the Steam Deck is not a console.

It is reasonable to assume that as gaming consoles progress in technological prowess, gamers will show the courts which devices are in competition with one another through their purchasing habits. The definition of gaming consoles is in good hands, not necessarily with the courts, but with the gamers.

 

Notes

[1] What Are the System Requirements for Fortnite on PC?, Epic Games, https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-battle-royale-c-202300000001636/technical-support-c-202300000001719/what-are-the-system-requirements-for-fortnite-on-pc-a202300000012731 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[2] What Platforms or Devices are Compatible with Fortnite?, Epic Games,https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-battle-royale-c-202300000001636/technical-support-c-202300000001719/what-platforms-or-devices-are-compatible-with-fortnite-a202300000012064 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[3] See generally id.

[4] See Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000).

[5] See generally id.

[6] Id. at 1024.

[7] Id.

[8] Virtual Card Games, Nintendo, https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/virtual-game-cards (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[9] FTC v. Microsoft Corp., 681 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2025).

[10] Razer, Razer Phone 2 – Flagship, Razer Newsroom (Oct. 10, 2018), https://www.razer.com/newsroom/product-news/razer-announces-the-razer-phone-2; Andrew E. Freedman, Best Gaming Laptops 2026: Tested and Reviewed, Tom’s Hardware (Jan. 9, 2026), https://www.tomshardware.com/laptops/gaming-laptops/best-gaming-laptops.

[11] Microsoft Corp., 681 F. Supp. at 1077.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 1086.

[14] Gorlick Distrib. Ctrs., LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 394 (1956)).

[15] In the Matter of Illumina, Inc. and Grail, Inc., No. 9401, 2023 WL 2823393, at *20 (F.T.C. Mar. 31, 2023).

[16] Id.

[17] Tim Brookes, Should You Buy a Steam Deck if You Don’t Have a Gaming PC?, How-To Geek (Dec. 3, 2024), https://www.howtogeek.com/should-you-buy-a-steam-deck-if-you-dont-have-a-gaming-pc/.

[18] Marla Broadway, What Console Is Better Than the Steam Deck?, PC Guide (last updated Nov. 29, 2023), https://www.pcguide.com/steam-deck/what-console-is-better/.

Post-Laidlaw Civil Penalties: Circuit Split or Good-Faith Exception?

February 10, 2026
Climate Change, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Litigation

Matthew Agurto, MJLST Staffer

Introduction

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (“the Act”) in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.[1] The Act included remedies for violations, including citizen suits or a suit brought by a citizen alleging a defendant violates the Act, with all fees payable to the United States Treasury.[2] To show standing, a plaintiff must show injury in fact, causation, and redressability.[3] The injury must be to the plaintiff, not the environment or environmental group.[4] This is a low bar; the injury can be merely impeding the view or a bad smell.[5]

The Act authorizes three types of remedies for citizen suits: (1) injunctive relief, (2) civil penalties, and (3) attorneys’ fees.[6] The Act permits an entity to get a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, enabling it to discharge waste into navigable waters.[7] NPDES permits are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency or approved state agency.[8]

Before filing suit, a citizen must give the violator sixty days’ notice of their intent to file suit, affording an opportunity for the defendant to remedy the problem.[9] If the defendant remedies the problem before filing, the issue is moot.[10] If the violator comes into compliance post-filing, the case is not moot for purposes of attorney fees and civil damages.[11] In such an instance, injunctive relief fails to be an appropriate remedy. Although courts are divided on this issue, a closer examination of the cases suggests a “good faith” exception to the traditional rule for certain violations.

Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Laidlaw held that a suit under the Act was moot for injunctive relief if behavior sought to be remedied could not be expected to recur after remedied in the sixty-day notice period.[12] The U.S. Supreme Court left the civil penalties issue for post notice and filing compliance to the district court on remand.[13] Some suggest that a circuit split emerged, as circuits have ruled differently on whether civil penalties are moot for post-filing compliance.[14]

Circuits ruled on materially different issues. Specifically, the Eighth and Ninth Circuits hold that civil penalties are not distinct in cases where the defendant did not have an NPDES permit.[15] Five other circuits hold that civil penalties are distinct in cases where the defendant violated a valid permit.

The Five Circuits Holding Civil Penalties Distinct from Mootness

The Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits hold civil penalties distinct from mootness.[16] However, all these cases involve defendants who violated existing permits.[17]

For example, the Second Circuit, in Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Pan American Tanning Corporation, held civil penalties are not extinguished post compliance, as it diminishes the incentive to file a citizen suit.[18] The Second Circuit affirmed this holding post-Laidlaw on deterrence justifications.[19] The Third, Fourth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits followed on similar grounds, holding that citizens suits lose their effectiveness and deterrence value without civil penalties being imposed for post-filing compliance.[20] This would create a pervasive incentive for violators to stall litigation as and come into compliance at their convenience, which is entirely against the spirit of the Act.

The Ninth and Eighth Circuits Hold a Violator Remedying the Issue Renders it Moot

The Ninth and Eighth Circuits hold civil penalties as distinct from mootness.[21] In Coastal Environment Rights Foundation v. Naples Restaurant Group, Naples Restaurant Group (“Naples”) hosted its Fourth of July Fireworks show, discharging fireworks over water.[22] Naples failed to pay the entire amount for a permit due to an administrative error and promptly remedied the error once notified.[23] The Ninth Circuit did not impose civil penalties against Naples.[24] Similarly, in the Eighth Circuit, in Mississippi River Revival v. City of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis applied for discharge permits for waste from its sewage system.[25] Due to administrative delay, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency failed to provide its permit within a year to comply with the Water Quality Act of 1987.[26] Due to the “good faith” violations, the respective courts did not impose civil penalties on either defendant.[27]

Despite both cases being post-Laidlaw, the facts of these cases differ from the other circuits’ cases, holding civil penalties distinct from Mootness. In these two instances, neither defendant had a permit initially and came into compliance as soon as possible.[28] Violations were not expected to recur, and there was no deterrence benefit.[29]

The Good Faith Exception

Reading the cases in conjunction, there is no circuit split on this issue. Rather, there is a good-faith exception to the rule of imposing civil penalties on entities complying with NPDES permits in the post-notice period. If a party is actively violating its permit, it will face civil penalties. As it serves as a strong deterrent for future violations, this is within the spirit of the Act. However, in cases such as the City of Minneapolis or Naples, there was no intent to pollute; administrative error and delay impeded their ability to comply. A deterrent civil penalty would do nothing to remedy these good-faith violations. Implicitly, courts adhere to the traditional rule of imposing penalties on violators but making an exception for “good faith” violations.

 

Notes

[1] Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 52 (1987).

[2] 33 U.S.C § 1365; see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 173 (2000); 33 U.S.C § 1320(d).

[3] Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 174.

[4] Id. at 168–69.

[5] Id. at 181–82.

[6] Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 54.

[7] 33 U.S.C. § 1344.

[8] 33 U.S.C. § 1342; NPDES Permit Basics, Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-permit-basics#:~:text=An%20Operator%20must%20submit%20a,federal%20requirements%20at%20a%20minimum (last visited Jan. 23, 2026).

[9] Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 174–75.

[10] Id. at 189–90 (discussing compliance within the notice period rendering the issue moot).

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 193.

[13] Id. at 192–94.

[14] Quinn Wilson & Bernie Pazonowski, U.S. Law Week’s November 2025 Circuit Split Review: Labor Rights, Bloomberg L. (Dec. 4, 2025, 4:00am) https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/bloomberg-law-news/XEBP2ATO000000.

[15] Coastal Env’t Rts. Found. v. Naples Rest. Grp., LLC, 158 F.4th 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2025); Mississippi River Revival, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 319 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of civil penalties because the cities violation lacking a permit was unavoidable).

[16] Atl. States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. Tanning Corp., 993 F.2d 1017, 1021 (2d Cir. 1993) (discussing the weakened deterrent effect and diminished incentives for plaintiffs in civil suits under the Act); Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 503 (3d Cir. 1993) (discussing a citizen suit losing its effectiveness and deterrent effect if penalty claims were mooted); Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., 890 F.2d 690, 697 (4th Cir. 1989); Atl. States Legal Found., Inc. v. Stroh Die Casting Co., 116 F.3d 814, 820 (7th Cir. 1997); Atl. States Legal Found., Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128, 1143 (11th Cir. 1990).

[17] Pan Am Tanning, 993 F.2d at 1018; Texaco Ref. & Mktg., 2 F.3d at 506; Gwaltney, 890 F.2d at 692; Stroh Die Casting, 116 F.3d at 817; Tyson Foods, 897 F.2d at 1142.

[18] Pan Am Tanning, 993 F.2d at 1021.

[19] Bldg. & Const. Trades Council of Buffalo, New York & Vicinity v. Downtown Dev., Inc., 448 F.3d 138, 152 (2nd Cir. 2006).

[20] Pan. Am. Tanning, 993 F.2d at 1021; Texaco Ref. & Mktg., 2 F.3d at 503; Gwaltney, 890 F.2d at 697; Stroh Die Casting, 116 F.3d at 820; Tyson Foods, at 1143.

[21] Coastal Env’t Rts. Found. v. Naples Rest. Grp., LLC, 158 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2025); Mississippi River Revival, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 319 F.3d 1013, 1014 (8th Cir. 2003).

[22] Naples, 158 F.4th at 1055.

[23] Id. at 1060–61.

[24] Id. at 1061.

[25] City of Minneapolis, 319 F.3d at 1015.

[26] Id. at 1017.

[27] Id. at 1018; Naples, 158 F.4th. at 1064.

[28] Coastal Env’t Rts. Found. v. Naples Rest. Grp., LLC, 158 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2025); Mississippi River Revival, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 319 F.3d 1013, 1017–18 (8th Cir. 2003).

[29] City of Minneapolis, 319 F.3d at 1017; Naples, 158 F.4th at 1064.

Proposed Rule of Evidence 707: Machine Experts

January 26, 2026
Artificial Intelligence, Evidence

Autumn Zierman, MJLST Staffer

Citing concerns about the lack of reliability and authenticity of machine-generated evidence, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (“the Committee”) published its Proposed Rule 707 (“Rule 707”) last June. Rule 707 seeks to address those instances when AI evidence is presented in court without human expert accompaniment.[1] Rule 707 intends to hold artificial intelligence that created evidence to the same standards as human experts (the Daubert standard).[2] The proposed rule is: “When machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert witness and would be subject to Rule 702 if testified by a witness, the court may admit the evidence only if it satisfies the requirements of Rule 702(a)-(d).”[3] With the notice and comment period ending on February 16th, 2026, time remains to review (and comment on) the Committee’s plan.

Susceptibility of Training Data to Flaws

The first flaw in Rule 707 is that it requires judges to become arbiter experts on the reliability of training data. The proposed rule requires courts to determine whether a machine can demonstrate reliability in how it is trained.[4] Problematically, most openly available machine learning tools or AI that may be used to generate court testimony are black box systems.[5]

The “black box” is the data set the AI is trained on to build a system capable of generating autonomous results or simulating thought.[6] It is, by design, impossible to explain how a black box system arrives at its decisions.[7] But black box systems are known to perpetuate the implicit bias of their creators because the data sets they are given to train from are inherently skewed.[8]

Certainly, the argument may be made that machines are less likely to be biased than their human expert counterparts. This argument misses a core objective of our adversarial system; juries are asked to evaluate evidence given in court for its reliability.[9] Experts may be impeached; but how do you impeach a system you know nothing about?

Possible Confrontation Clause Challenge

Considering the nature of the adversarial system, Rule 707 also raises questions regarding the Confrontation Clause. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of all accused to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.”[10] This manifests in a right of the accused to cross-examine the State’s witnesses against them, which requires the physical presence of a witness at the criminal trial.[11] This requirement extends, in many cases, to the experts the State relies upon in building its case.[12]

Imagine, then, the State seeks to introduce a composite sketch created by a machine with information given in witness interviews.[13] The sketch does not just assist in the investigation—it lends legitimacy to the investigation’s result. But, where a sketch artist may be cross-examined and evaluated in front of a jury, there is no way to examine the machine for the inherent bias it holds to create such a sketch. There is no way for a machine to present itself in fulfillment of the Confrontation Clause.

This flaw goes to the heart of the problem with Proposed Rule 707; it treats machines as replacements for human witnesses. Regardless of the potential machines hold for generating evidence, they cannot replace the human element that the trial system seeks to preserve.

Invitation Not a Warning

The Committee has prefaced Rule 707 as “not intended to encourage parties to opt for machine-generated over live expert witnesses.”[14] However, clever lawyers seeking a statistically based argument will view the rule as another means by which to support their client’s case. Thus, the proposed rule cuts with a double edge, either courts bury themselves having to test the reliability of each piece of AI evidence offered, or they will provide standards for broad acceptance, which opens the door to a surplusage of AI-generated evidence.

In its comment on the proposed rule, the Lawyers for Civil Justice opine that “[c]ourts and lawyers will read this as authorization, not as a hurdle or prohibition. The permissive language—‘the court may admit’—signals achievability, not restriction.”[15]

Conclusion

Rule 707 seeks to address a rising problem, reliability of AI evidence in the courtroom. But it relies on a human standard for a nonhuman problem—which opens the door to a plethora of problems arising at trial.

 

Notes

[1] Comm. on Rules of Prac. & Proc., Agenda Book, 76 (June 10, 2025), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2025-06-standing-agenda-book.pdf.pdf [hereinafter “Agenda Book”].

[2] Federal Rule of Evidence 702(a)-(d) is usually applied through Daubert analysis, which considers the following five factors: whether the theory/technique employed has (i) been tested; (ii) been subjected to peer review; (iii) an acceptable error rate; (iv) established standards controlling it’s application; and (v) is generally accepted in the scientific community. See generally Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[3] Agenda Book at 76.

[4] Id. at 77.

[5] Matthew Kosinski, What Is Black Box AI and How Does It Work?, IBM (Oct. 29, 2024), available at https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/black-box-ai.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] See James Holdsworth, What Is AI Bias?, IBM, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-bias (last visited Jan. 20, 2026); See also Lou Blouin, Can We Make Artificial Intelligence More Ethical?, Univ. of Mich.-Dearborn (June 14, 2021), https://umdearborn.edu/news/can-we-make-artificial-intelligence-more-ethical.

[9] Fed. R. Ev. 1008.

[10] U.S. Const. amend. VI.

[11] See generally Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

[12] See generally Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (requiring the lab technician responsible for generating a report to be present at trial for cross-examination).

[13] Kim LaCapria, Police Raise Eyebrows After Using ChatGPT to Create Composite Sketches of Suspects: ‘No One Knows How [It] Works’, The Cool Down (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/ai-generated-police-sketch-chatgpt/.

[14] Agenda Book at 75.

[15] Lawyers for Civil Justice, Comment Letter on Proposed Rule to Proposed Rule 707 (Jan. 5, 2026), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-0013.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | Report Web Accessibility Issues