This week brought several significant developments in the intersection of legal battles and climate impacts. One such event involved a federal appellate panel ruling on Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s lawsuit seeking to shut down part of a petroleum pipeline that runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The panel decided that the case belongs in state court, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the future of the pipeline. Meanwhile, in the UK, there was a landmark ruling that could have a substantial impact on future oil drilling. The Supreme Court ruled that Surrey Council should have considered the climate change impacts of new oil wells, signalling a potential shift in the regulatory landscape surrounding oil extraction. Additionally, in California, lawmakers were engaged in a debate over a bill aimed at curbing well-drilling in areas where nearby wells could run dry. This bill sought to safeguard drinking water sources but faced rejection, highlighting the complexities and challenges in balancing water conservation with continued access to essential resources.