Blog

On the morning of December 30, 2021, the Marshall Fire ignited in Boulder County, Colorado. Driven by hurricane-force winds and fueled by vegetation desiccated by years of drought, it burned more than six thousand acres and destroyed over one thousand homes in a matter of hours — the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history. Boulder County’s lawsuit against Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil Corporation, filed in state court in 2018, seeks to recover those costs from the companies whose products allegedly caused them. The suit rests not merely on the claim that fossil fuel combustion drives climate change, but on the more specific and more serious allegation that the defendant companies spent decades concealing the relationship between their products and climate harm while actively marketing those products to a public kept deliberately uninformed of the consequences.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently cleared the way for President Donald Trump to keep building his garish ballroom, complete with gilded columns, gold chandeliers, and a “drone-proof” roof. The decision might look like a one-off fight over historic preservation, but some legal scholars fear the blast zone is much wider. The real question is more fundamental: who gets to ask a federal court to stop an allegedly unlawful project?

Teaching Environmental Law in Context is a fantastic resource, not only for law professors, but for professors of environmental studies and other adjacent fields. I can’t begin to tell you all the number of times that my colleagues at the University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (as well as colleagues in Environmental Science, Community and Environmental Sociology, and Geography) have asked for a primer like this with respect to environmental law. I am asking our library to get this book right now.

Teaching environmental law has always been hard. The problem is, it’s about things our students care about. It’s about what Exxon knew, and the BP oil spill, and birds soaked with oil, and little kids with asthma or lead poisoning or cancer because wealthy people in corporate boardrooms were indifferent to the suffering of Black and Brown communities. It’s about Native Americans marching in protest to protect sacred lands their ancestors have stewarded and protected for millennia. I suppose this varies by region, but here in north Philadelphia, students come into class energized, outraged, and ready to defend the powerless and speak truth to power.

On August 5, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, which is both a significant air pollution case and an interesting case study in how the U.S. Supreme Court has changed judicial review of agency actions. The case was brought by a group in Arvin, California, a small city near Bakersfield.

In this post and video, I discuss the 4th of July Clearwater incident in New York Harbor with Dan Farber, a law professor at UC-Berkeley, who specializes in constitutional and environmental law.

On June 30, the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee questioned Russell Vought, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Given the influential role that Vought has played in the Trump administration, both as a member and in shaping its policy agenda through Project 2025, the hearing provided a critical opportunity for conducting oversight.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held legislative limitations on the president’s power to fire administrators of independent agencies to be unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that because administrative power is “executive,” the Chief Executive must have the power to hire and fire the people appointed to head up all government agencies. Through this categorical approach to its “separation of powers” doctrine, the Court denied Congress a role in determining how best to implement the laws it passes, even though a) the Constitution is silent on whether Congress can impose restrictions on firing administrative officials, b) the legislature is a co-equal branch of government, and c) Congress is as or more accountable to the voters than the president.

With its June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority takes another step toward building an imperial presidency on the ashes of the U.S. Constitution’s vision of a democratic republic. This clash over removal authority of independent agency heads was always meant as just the opening volley in this broader war. The end of the independent civil service, and even of administrative law itself, no longer seem improbable. The only real stopping point appears to be what the business community will tolerate, as today’s related decision in Trump v. Cook demonstrates.