Blog

How would I describe the world we live in? Well, the world we live in has molded me into an activist. I am of a generation that has been required to stand up and demand our rights, as our future is uncertain. More than perhaps any time in human history, our planet and the life it supports are struggling mightily. Because not enough has been done quickly enough on these issues, youth activists must pick up the torch and push to get things done.

Last week, in the capital of the state holding the largest recoverable coal reserves and the fifth-highest per capita combustion emissions in the country, a trial court shook the fossil fuel establishment by invalidating legislation that helps sustain the dominance of fossil fuels in Montana.

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the issue, lawsuits against the oil industry are heading back to state court. That’s where the plaintiffs wanted those cases from the beginning, but it’s by no means the last of the issues they will confront. The oil companies will fight a scorched earth campaign, spending millions to contest every possible issue. Here are some of the major issues we can expect them to raise.

Nero fiddled, and I really don’t know how white powder made its way into the White House. But I do know that the California Supreme Court just issued an opinion in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks that will be incredibly hurtful to the working class during the next pandemic. I wonder how the California legislature will react.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA dramatically curtails the permitting program covering wetlands. We urgently need to find strategies for saving the wetlands the Court left unprotected. We have a number of possible strategies and need to start work on implementing them immediately.

In the recent debt ceiling law, Congress extensively revamped the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the law governing environmental impact statements. An obscure White House agency, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), will have the first opportunity to shape the interpretation of the new language.

The following post provides detailed analysis of the recent Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Supreme Court decision. It was originally posted to The George Washington Law Review and is  cross-posted with permission.  The current Supreme Court is not a friend of the administrative state. A majority of its members seem to take particular umbrage at administration of the regulatory programs […]

On May 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is the Supreme Court’s fourth foray over several decades into what count as protected “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. This language provides the key jurisdictional hook for all important federal powers under the Act.

We’ve already started to hear claims that the Biden power plant rule falls under the major questions doctrine, which the U.S. Supreme Court used to strike down former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Are those claims plausible?