Judge dismisses $400M PFAS claim filed by New Mexico landowners
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed in August by almost 30 New Mexico landowners over PFAS contamination.
The Curry County property owners, who live near Cannon Air Force Base, allege the U.S. Department of Defense contaminated their properties by using firefighting foams containing substances known as "forever chemicals" — which amounted to a "taking" of their property by the federal government without sufficient compensation.
Aqueous film-forming foam, a firefighting foam that contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, was used at Cannon Air Force Base for decades, according to the lawsuit. PFAS was discovered both on the base and in surrounding areas in 2018.
A local dairy farmer, Art Schaap, had to euthanize thousands of cows on his farm as a result of the plume of contamination. Schaap was a plaintiff in the case.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Armando Bonilla wrote in an order the claims of several plaintiffs were "unripe."
"While these plaintiffs have been alerted to the possibility of serious PFAS contamination on their property — and have been working diligently to determine the extent of that contamination and hold the Government accountable for its contribution — they have not yet been able to confirm the extent of the contamination through complete groundwater and soil testing," Bonilla wrote.
Furthermore, the judge wrote, there wasn't sufficient evidence the Air Force intended to spread contamination or was required to dispose of PFAS in any particular way — at the time of use, the chemicals had not been deemed hazardous.
A bill passed this year by the New Mexico Legislature includes PFAS under the state's hazardous waste definition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scrapping of Vagrancy Act next year landmark moment, say homelessness charities
A 200-year-old law criminalising rough sleepers is to be scrapped in what homeless charities have hailed a 'landmark moment'. The Vagrancy Act, introduced in 1824 for punishment of 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds, in England', is to be repealed by spring next year, the Government has confirmed. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who is also Housing Secretary, said Labour is 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. The law was brought in to deal with rising homelessness after the Napoleonic Wars and the Industrial Revolution and modern-day homeless charities have long called for it to be scrapped. Campaigners said criminalising the most vulnerable has never been the answer and instead homelessness needs to be properly addressed through support for people who end up sleeping rough. Figures published in April showed the number of people classed as living on the streets in London had risen by more than a third (38%) year-on-year to 706 from 511. According to the latest Combined Homelessness and Information Network (Chain) statistics, the total number recorded as sleeping rough in the capital was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near-8% increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year. Ms Rayner said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Homelessness minister Rushanara Ali described the 'archaic' Act as 'neither just nor fit for purpose'. She added: 'Scrapping the Vagrancy Act for good is another step forward in our mission to tackle homelessness in all its forms, by focusing our efforts on its root causes.' The Government said new 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers', and will be brought in throughamendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. The Government said this will ensure organised begging – often facilitated by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg by, for example, driving them places to do so. Crisis chief executive Matt Downie said: 'This is a landmark moment that will change lives and prevent thousands of people from being pushed into the shadows, away from safety.' He praised the Government for having 'shown such principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious Act'. He said: 'We hope this signals a completely different approach to helping people forced onto the streets and clears the way for a positive agenda that is about supporting people who desperately want to move on in life and fulfil their potential. We look forward to assisting the UK Government with their forthcoming homelessness strategy to do exactly that.' St Mungo's chief executive Emma Haddad said the Act's repeal 'cannot come soon enough' and called for a 'focus on tackling the health, housing and wider societal issues that are causing homelessness in the first place'. Youth homelessness charity Centrepoint warned that a challenge will be 'ensuring that proposed amendments don't have the unintended consequences of punishing people instead of supporting them'. Balbir Kaur Chatrik, the charity's director of policy and prevention, said: 'Criminalising the most vulnerable was never an effective solution and we look forward to working with the Government on its ending homelessness strategy to ensure people in this position are supported, not punished going forward.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge restricts DOGE access to federal databases, finding 'breach of law and trust'
A federal judge has restricted the Department of Government Efficiency's access to federal databases, citing a "breach of law and trust." Led by the American Federation of Government Employees, a group of current and former federal government employees and their unions in February sued the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOGE for alleged "breach of privacy." U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' April 25 motion for a preliminary injunction Monday, but said the scope of the injunction would be addressed in a separate order. "Following President Trump's inauguration, OPM granted broad access to many of those systems to a group of individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'), even though no credible need for this access had been demonstrated. In doing so, OPM violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices," Cote wrote in a 99-page opinion on Monday. Supreme Court Rules Doge Can Access Social Security Information "In brief, the OPM records at issue concern the plaintiffs' most sensitive private affairs," the opinion says. "They include social security numbers, health care information, banking information, and information about family members. For some people, disclosure of information in OPM systems could subject them to danger." Read On The Fox News App An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Cotes said plaintiffs "have shown they are entitled to" a preliminary injunction, which "would stop disclosure of OPM records to individuals associated with DOGE and require the destruction of any copies of personal information that have been obtained through such disclosure." "The plaintiffs have shown that the defendants disclosed OPM records to individuals who had no legal right of access to those records," Cotes wrote. "In doing so, the defendants violated the Privacy Act and departed from cybersecurity standards that they are obligated to follow. This was a breach of law and of trust. Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs." The judge further criticized the Trump administration's handling of OPM records. "The Government could have acknowledged that in its rush to accomplish a new President's agenda mistakes were made and established, important protocols were overlooked. It has not," Cote wrote. "The Government has defended this lawsuit by repeatedly invoking a mantra that it adhered to all established procedures and safeguards. It did not. Without a full-throated recognition that the law and established cybersecurity procedures must be followed, the risk of irreparable harm will continue to exist." In a May hearing, Justice Department lawyers reportedly argued that any preliminary injunction granted should include exceptions for high-level OPM officials and cited how a separate judge had walked back initial restrictions placed on DOGE access to Treasury Department records in February so long as DOGE staffers have the appropriate training and vetting, according to the Federal News Network. Justice Department lawyers filed a separate motion in the case on Friday, citing the Supreme Court's latest decision related to DOGE access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records. DOGE's future remains uncertain amid a rocky public fallout between its former leader, tech billionaire Elon Musk, and President Donald Trump, though both men previously said they want the waste-cutting entity's work to continue. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday in cases involving DOGE, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. Federal Judge Dismisses California's Lawsuit Over Trump Tariffs, Citing Jurisdiction Issue The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE. In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that had restricted the team's access to the SSA under federal privacy laws. The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a "Ponzi scheme" and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on "little more than suspicion" of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE cannot work effectively with those restrictions. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Judge restricts DOGE access to federal databases, finding 'breach of law and trust'
Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
Judge restricts DOGE access to federal databases, finding 'breach of law and trust'
A federal judge has restricted the Department of Government Efficiency's access to federal databases, citing a "breach of law and trust." Led by the American Federation of Government Employees, a group of current and former federal government employees and their unions in February sued the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOGE for alleged "breach of privacy." U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' April 25 motion for a preliminary injunction Monday, but said the scope of the injunction would be addressed in a separate order. "Following President Trump's inauguration, OPM granted broad access to many of those systems to a group of individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'), even though no credible need for this access had been demonstrated. In doing so, OPM violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices," Cote wrote in a 99-page opinion on Monday. "In brief, the OPM records at issue concern the plaintiffs' most sensitive private affairs," the opinion says. "They include social security numbers, health care information, banking information, and information about family members. For some people, disclosure of information in OPM systems could subject them to danger." An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Cotes said plaintiffs "have shown they are entitled to" a preliminary injunction, which "would stop disclosure of OPM records to individuals associated with DOGE and require the destruction of any copies of personal information that have been obtained through such disclosure." "The plaintiffs have shown that the defendants disclosed OPM records to individuals who had no legal right of access to those records," Cotes wrote. "In doing so, the defendants violated the Privacy Act and departed from cybersecurity standards that they are obligated to follow. This was a breach of law and of trust. Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs." The judge further criticized the Trump administration's handling of OPM records. "The Government could have acknowledged that in its rush to accomplish a new President's agenda mistakes were made and established, important protocols were overlooked. It has not," Cote wrote. "The Government has defended this lawsuit by repeatedly invoking a mantra that it adhered to all established procedures and safeguards. It did not. Without a full-throated recognition that the law and established cybersecurity procedures must be followed, the risk of irreparable harm will continue to exist." In a May hearing, Justice Department lawyers reportedly argued that any preliminary injunction granted should include exceptions for high-level OPM officials and cited how a separate judge had walked back initial restrictions placed on DOGE access to Treasury Department records in February so long as DOGE staffers have the appropriate training and vetting, according to the Federal News Network. Justice Department lawyers filed a separate motion in the case on Friday, citing the Supreme Court's latest decision related to DOGE access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records. DOGE's future remains uncertain amid a rocky public fallout between its former leader, tech billionaire Elon Musk, and President Donald Trump, though both men previously said they want the waste-cutting entity's work to continue. The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday in cases involving DOGE, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE. In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that had restricted the team's access to the SSA under federal privacy laws. The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a "Ponzi scheme" and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on "little more than suspicion" of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE cannot work effectively with those restrictions. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies.
