“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump judge Allison Rushing cast the deciding vote to reverse lower courts that had returned environmental lawsuits against corporations filed by Maryland and South Carolina to state court. Rushing joined a 2-1 decision by Judge Steven Agee, who was appointed by President George W Bush, to which Obama nominee Judge Henry Floyd dissented. The March 2025 rulings was in Maryland v 3M Company.
What happened in this case?
Several large chemical manufacturers, including 3M, have been charged with damaging states’ waterways due to the use of synthetic chemicals called PFAs in their consumer and other products. PFAs – sometimes called “forever chemicals” – dissolve quickly in water, spread broadly, and can remain in the environment “indefinitely.” They can be “noxious to animals” and lead to “significant health issues” in humans, including cancer and liver damage.
Maryland and South Carolina each sued 3M for damages and other relief in their own state courts. They each filed two distinct types of complaints. The first concerned the production of fire-fighting foam called AFFF for the US military, and these cases were promptly removed to federal court because they involved some conduct by federal officials. The second category of lawsuits concerned production of consumer products which, the states contended, did not involve AFFF and specifically excluded it and involved purely state law claims. Although 3M initially removed cases in that second category to federal court as well, both states maintained that these cases had nothing to do with AFFF or conduct by federal officers and moved to remand them to state court. The district courts agreed.
3M appealed to the Fourth Circuit. It asserted that removal of both categories of cases to federal court was proper.
Why was the decision made possible by Judge Rushing harmful?
The ruling made possible by Judge Rushing held that the lower courts were wrong to return these cases to the state courts. The majority stated that 3M had “plausibly alleged” that the conduct charged against it in the second category of lawsuits was ‘related to its federal work” because PFAs from different sources would “comingle” in the waterways.
Judge Henry Floyd strongly dissented, explaining that the majority had improperly read the removal law to “sweep so broadly to include” the non-AFFF claims. This was because the states are seeking to “recover from harm resulting from a discrete category of consumer products unrelated to 3M’s federal conduct of manufacturing firefighting foam to military specifications.” The result, Judge Floyd wrote, is to “move toward foreclosing state courtrooms to plaintiffs bringing state-law claims against defendants,” when there is even the “slightest connection” between that misconduct and work they have done as federal contractors. Judge Floyd explained that this in turn will undermine our “federal system,” which “trusts state courts to hear most cases – even big, important ones.”
The opinion made possible by Trump Judge Rushing will obviously harm the ability of Maryland and South Carolina to seek justice for the environmental harm caused by 3M in their own courts. It also sets a precedent that may improperly expand removal jurisdiction and limit cases brought in state court, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, North and South Carolina, and Virginia and West Virginia. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.