The Nickel Report

On March 19, 2026, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in what has been described as a landmark Clean Water Act (CWA) case—West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc. et al. v. The Chemours Co. FC LLC, No. 25-1924. A key issue in the appeal is whether a Clean Water Act permit violation can create a presumption of irreparable harm sufficient to support an order granting a preliminary injunction.

Background and District Court Opinion

In December 2024, an environmental group sued Chemours on behalf of its members to enforce effluent limitations under a CWA permit at a manufacturing plant in West Virginia. In February 2025, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction.

Courts recognize preliminary injunctive relief as an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy. To obtain that relief, a plaintiff must make a “clear showing” that it has satisfied each of the following factors: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit absent the injunction, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. These are often referred to as the Winter factors because the U.S. Supreme Court articulated them in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

The district court held a multi-day evidentiary hearing in May 2025. In August 2025, it entered a preliminary injunction restricting the defendant’s discharges of a chemical into the Ohio River from the plant by “whatever means necessary.” W. Virginia Rivers Coal., Inc. v. Chemours Co. FC, LLC, 793 F. Supp. 3d 790, 823 (S.D.W. Va. 2025).

The district court stated that, “[i]n practice,” the Winter requirements “amount to a slow suffocation of the Clean Water Act’s citizen suit.” 793 F. Supp. 3d at 809. “Courts, leaning heavily on Winter, often deny injunctive relief even when the Clean Water Act has clearly been violated.” Id. According to the district court, “[t]hat is not enforcement.” Id. The district court stated that courts should interpret the Winter factors “in light of the Clean Water Act’s purpose.” Id. In particular, “[a] continuing violation of federal environmental law should presume irreparable harm and clearly demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.” Id.

The Appeal

In its appeal on the merits of the injunction, the defendant argued that basing irreparable harm on the mere existence of a permit violation would mean an injunction could issue in essentially every case where a permit violation exists. According to the defendant, this would collapse the irreparable harm and public interest factors and transform CWA litigation.

Industry amici echoed the defendant’s concerns regarding the irreparable harm standard. “If the district court were affirmed,” they argued, “there is a substantial risk that preliminary injunctions would go from extraordinary remedies to routine interim relief in [CWA] citizen-suit cases involving even technical violations of the statute—and, potentially, in analogous cases arising under other statutes.”

The panel for oral argument included Judges Niemeyer, Quattlebaum, and Rushing. Judge Niemeyer questioned plaintiff’s counsel regarding the irreparable harm factor, observing that the district court “started with the fact that the law permit was being violated, and therefore it has to be enjoined, and that there’s necessary damage as a result.” Judge Niemeyer also commented that, in light of the extraordinary nature of a preliminary injunction, it was “strange” that the district court “editorialized about” Winter and “sort of gave [Winter] the back of the hand.” Plaintiff’s counsel disagreed with that characterization of the district court’s opinion, arguing that the district court made specific findings about harm. On rebuttal, defendant’s counsel argued that presuming irreparable injury is “troubling” and “requires vacating the injunction.”

In light of its potential impact on injunctive relief issues in CWA cases (and perhaps other environmental cases), entities subject to these laws should closely monitor this case. There is no timetable for the Fourth Circuit to issue its ruling.