Iowa v. Securities & Exchange Commission

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the petitions challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) climate change disclosure rules be held in abeyance until the SEC either reconsiders the rules through a notice-and-comment rulemaking or renews its defense of the rules. The Eighth Circuit noted that the rules had been stayed (by the SEC) and found that an abeyance would not cause material prejudice to the petitioners. The Eighth Circuit did not accede to the SEC’s July 23, 2025 request that the court decide the case. The Eighth Circuit’s order stated that it was “the agency’s responsibility to determine whether its Final Rules will be rescinded, repealed, modified, or defended in litigation.”

–

State intervenors filed a response to the SEC's status report asking that the Eighth Circuit continue to hold the case in abeyance until the SEC “clearly indicates what it intends to do with the Rules, including whether it will rescind the Rules if the Court upholds them.”

On July 23, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a status report in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals proceedings challenging the SEC’s 2024 climate change disclosure rules. In response to questions posed by the court in an April 24, 2025 order regarding the SEC’s intentions with respect to the rules, the SEC said it did not intend to review or reconsider the rules “at this time” and requested that the Eighth Circuit end the abeyance and decide the case. The SEC stated that if the court upheld the rules, “any reconsideration of them would be subject to Commission deliberation and vote of its members, and the Commission cannot prejudge that action.” (The SEC also stated that prejudging “would not be appropriate.”) In addition, the SEC stated that because the court’s decision “would inform the scope and need for such action,” a decision by the court would “promote an efficient resolution to the dispute between the parties.” The SEC contended that a decision by the court would not be advisory because “[a]n important, live controversy of national policy with critical economic and policy ramifications” remained and that the court’s decision could “conclusively resolve the dispute about the Commission’s power to adopt the mandatory disclosure obligations on climate risk in the Rules.”

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted intervenor blue states’ motion to hold in abeyance the cases challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) final climate disclosure rule. The SEC notified the court in March that it wished to withdraw from defense of the rule, and the blue states argued in their motion that this “apparent change in position” on the rule provided good cause for an abeyance in order to “maintain the status quo and preserve judicial resources” while the SEC determined whether it would amend or rescind the rule. The petitioners—which included red states and energy companies and trade groups—had opposed the abeyance motion, arguing that the court should either hold oral argument or submit the case without argument and issue a decision holding the rule unlawful on the merits and vacating it. The petitioners described the rule as “hang[ing] like the Sword of Damocles over public companies around the country.” In the order granting the abeyance motion, the Eighth Circuit directed the SEC to file a status report within 90 days advising whether the SEC intends to review or reconsider the rule. The court specified that if the SEC determines “to take no action, then the status report should address whether the Commission will adhere to the rules if the petitions for review are denied and, if not, why the Commission will not review or reconsider the rules at this time.”

–

–

The intervenor states asked the Eighth Circuit to hold the cases in abeyance, arguing that the SEC’s “apparent change in position” on the rules provided good cause to suspend the proceedings so as to preserve judicial resources.

States that had already been granted leave to intervene as respondents in all but two of the consolidated cases challenging the SEC rules filed a motion for leave to intervene in the two remaining proceedings “to remove any doubt about their role as Intervenor-Respondents defending the challenged regulations.”

On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it wished to withdraw its defense of the SEC’s climate change disclosure rules. The SEC’s letter stated that the court “would not need to reach the petitioners’ challenges based on the First Amendment or non-delegation doctrine if it sets the Rules aside on other grounds.” The SEC said it would yield any oral argument time back to the court or to other parties.

In the cases challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate disclosure rule in the Eighth Circuit, the SEC submitted a letter to the court notifying it of the Acting SEC Chairman’s statement noting the “recent change in the composition” of the SEC and the fact that a majority of current Commissioners “voted against” the climate disclosure rule. The Acting Chair “recognized that this change and the ‘recent Presidential Memorandum regarding a Regulatory Freeze’ ‘bear on the conduct of this litigation.’” The Acting Chair directed SEC staff to request that the court not schedule oral argument “to provide time for the Commission to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.”

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

In June, opening briefs were filed by the remaining petitioners, and at least 14 briefs were filed by amici curiae supporting the challenges to the rule. The amici included members of Congress, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, Manhattan Institute, Cato Institute, AFA Action, Advancing American Freedom, Inc., Florida and Kansas, American Chemistry Council, Law and Finance Professors, Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D., Business Roundtable, Job Creators Network Foundation, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Buckeye Institute. The briefs argue that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the SEC’s statutory authority (including based on the major questions doctrine), violates the First Amendment, and violates the nondelegation doctrine. The SEC’s brief is due August 5.

–

–

–

–

On June 6, 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted motions by Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation and by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) for voluntary dismissal of their petitions seeking review of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule for climate-related disclosures for investors. The Sierra Club petitioners said they had sought review of “several discrete deficiencies” in the rule but that they believed the rule “makes needed improvements to disclosure requirements that will better inform them of the financial risks companies face from climate change and that are well within the SEC’s authority to require.” They said they “now believe that focusing our resources on advocating for improved investor protections outside of court, while also supporting efforts to defend the SEC’s fundamental authority to require disclosure of climate-based risks, is the most effective way to ensure investors have the information they need to properly evaluate companies’ exposure to such risks and thus effectively manage their asset portfolios.” NRDC similarly said it had “decided to focus its resources on advocating for improvements to climate-related financial disclosures outside of this litigation.”

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

The SEC informed the Eighth Circuit that it had entered a stay of the rule pending completion of judicial review of the consolidated Eighth Circuit petitions. The SEC stated that a stay would facilitate the Eighth Circuit’s “orderly resolution” of the challenges and avoid potential regulatory uncertainty. The SEC’s stay order noted that in issuing the stay, the SEC was not departing from its view that the rule was “consistent with applicable law and within the Commission’s long-standing authority to require the disclosure of information important to investors in making investment and voting decisions.”

–

–

–

–

The SEC filed a motion to establish a consolidated briefing schedule for all stay motions, requesting that all such motions be filed by April 5 and that briefing be completed by May 10. The oilfield services companies asked that the Eighth Circuit rule based on existing briefing. Other business, industry, and state petitioners asked for a more accelerated briefing schedule than that requested by the SEC. Environmental organization petitioners consented to the SEC’s motion.

–

–

–

Two oilfield services companies asked the Eighth Circuit to grant their pending emergency motion for an administrative stay and a stay pending judicial review, which had been fully briefed before the Fifth Circuit.

The substantive issues raised in the two already-filed stay motions included that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, that the rule exceeded SEC’s statutory authority, that the major questions doctrine barred the rule, and that the rule violated the First Amendment.