Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and released it for public comment. CCL 6 identifies contaminants that are not yet regulated but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require future regulation. The draft list includes four contaminant groups — microplastics, pharmaceuticals, per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and disinfection byproducts — along with 75 individual chemicals and nine microbes that may be found in drinking water. Although PFAS were included on prior lists, this is the first time the EPA has designated microplastics or pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups. Inclusion on the draft CCL 6 signals an emerging concern about these new contaminant groups and the potential for future regulatory action.

Data center developers and hyperscalers are racing to build artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and data centers across the United States.[1] In response, federal and state policymakers have introduced legislative measures targeting rising electricity costs, grid strain, environmental impacts, and AI-driven job losses.[2] The most aggressive of these is a moratorium on data center construction.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., 2026 WL 457805 (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026), has two immediate consequences for Pennsylvania construction projects: it removes statutory bad faith as a weapon against sureties, but confirms that sureties can still be held directly liable for arbitration awards entered against their principals.

The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump upended the legal basis for billions of dollars in tariffs on imports imposed by the Trump administration. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the sweeping tariff regime, but it…

Construction disputes often arise from long-running projects involving multiple participants with varying roles governed by their separate contracts. Those contracts frequently contain inconsistent dispute resolution processes — some requiring litigation, others mandating arbitration.

INTRODUCTION

Latent construction defects can surface years after construction ends. Every defect is different, but they all raise the same question: who is responsible? This is a simple question with no simple answer, and warranty disputes can lead to huge losses for owners and contractors alike: owners are forced to pursue warranty claims and risk incurring costs of correction that should have been covered, while contractors bear the risk of “call back” repair work for which they may not be responsible. Both parties have multiple tools at their disposal to clarify their obligations and allocate responsibilities, but many (if not most) construction contracts fail to achieve the appropriate balancing of the risks each party should properly take on.

The Trump administration is expected to call on major U.S. technology companies and data center developers to voluntarily commit to a compact designed to ensure power-needy data centers do not raise household electricity prices or undermine grid reliability.[1] The initiative comes amid a nationwide surge in energy demand, driven largely by the rapid proliferation of data centers that power the artificial intelligence (AI) boom.[2] Although the compact would be voluntary and details on monitoring or enforcement remain limited, it signals a clear expectation from federal policymakers that large technology firms “pay their own way” for the incremental costs their facilities impose on the grid.

Register Here
Wednesday, February 18 • 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. ET

Jamey Collidge will present as part of an American Bar Association webinar panel “Beyond Contract Compliance: Exploring the Professional Standard of Care and Performance Accountability for Construction Managers” alongside Andrew Drobnis and Patrick Jaroski of Ankura and Ethan Tiegler of Consigli Construction Co. The program will take place on Wednesday, February 18, from 1:00 pm – 2:30 p.m. ET.

On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S5655 further amending New York’s Prompt Payment Act to render void any provision in a private construction contract exceeding $150,000 that requires retainage of more than 5% of the contract sum.[1]