Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of man-made, resiliently bonded chemicals, cause harm to both humans and animals. These “forever chemicals” can compromise immunity, increase cancer risks, and cause reproductive harm. Addressing the harms caused by PFAS variants is crucial to protect public health, environmental health, and biological diversity. However, the United States’ current regulatory scheme takes a disjointed approach to PFAS regulation. This is complicated by the frequent development of new PFAS variants, whose effects and environmental presence are largely unknown and understudied. While even the protections provided for humans under the current regulatory scheme fall short of the ideal, there is an even greater absence of meaningful regulation or guidance concerning harms to wildlife.
This Comment proposes that Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation can assist in closing the regulatory gap to protect endangered and threatened species. This approach is inspired by a history of using tort litigation to recover for human harms caused by PFAS variants. Rather than using tort litigation, this Comment proposes bringing citizen suits for violations to Sections Seven and Nine of ESA. Additionally, it argues that a multifaceted approach is necessary to address PFAS’s harms. Therefore, this Comment also recommends two other approaches to protecting wildlife from PFAS variants: legislative action and agency interpretation. Of the three suggested avenues, the most likely to occur and the most effective solution is ultimately judicial interpretation of ESA through litigation. Additionally, even though Section Nine has more barriers to successful litigation, an interpretation based on its “taking” prohibition would be more powerful compared to an interpretation of Section Seven’s consultation requirement. The issue of forever chemicals is complex yet pressing. It is constantly developing and affects almost every person and animal. Yet, there has been no comprehensive solution to the problem. This Comment concludes that a primary component of the solution, which would attempt to address harm at a broader, ecosystemic scale, should be litigation and subsequent judicial interpretation.
Recommended Citation
Charlotte A. Ramirez,
Litigating the "Forever Chemical" Problem Through the Endangered Species Act,
75
Emory L. J.
701
(2026).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol75/iss3/3