Citizen suits have been a powerful engine of environmental enforcement for over half a century. As the bounds of executive power are reimagined, challenges under Article II of the Constitution threaten their viability.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s intention to reconsider 31 regulations for the purpose of revitalizing the American economy and auto-industry, arguably neglecting the EPA’s environmental protection mission.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by imposing broad “end-result” permit requirements, marking a significant post-Chevron shift in environmental law.
The Supreme Court has assumed the mantle of “expert” decisionmaker—contravening the meaning and intention of the Clean Water Act, overruling decades of precedent, and limiting EPA’s ability to carry out their congressionally assigned and executive-directed duties.
The District’s failure to recycle beverage containers is an ongoing issue. But a recently proposed bottle-deposit bill promises to upend residents’ relationship to waste.
Artificial intelligence has taken the world—and the energy sector—by storm. To prevent AI from delaying the decarbonization of the electric grid, Virginia legislators have adopted a statutory scheme that incentivizes nuclear power.
The long-standing indigenous practice of prescribed burning offers a solution to the dangerous and frequent wildfires of the modern world.
Facing President Trump’s intensified climate rollback, states have emerged as the bulwark—recommitting to emission reductions, suing for constitutional principles, and challenging unprecedented executive overreach.
Rural Energy Cooperatives should utilize this under-discussed program within the Inflation Reduction Act to build clean energy infrastructure, lower costs, and combat persistent rural poverty.
Though the Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to decide whether state-level climate change lawsuits are preempted by federal law, the justices’ significant and recurring interest in the underlying question as well as the magnitude of what’s at stake for defendants make it likely that the question will return to the Court in the coming years.
