On May 29, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, holding that substantial judicial deference to agencies is required in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases, including in deciding “(i) how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and (ii) whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place.” The decision narrows the scope of NEPA review and will likely have lasting impacts on federal infrastructure proposals. On July 10, 2025, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to unpack the decision and discuss its potential implications for the future of NEPA. Here, we present a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

The Vermont and New York Climate Superfund laws establish a statutory framework for climate liability by requiring companies to pay for the cost of various climate change-related disasters across those states. In early 2025, industry and certain states filed two separate lawsuits against Vermont and New York, challenging their respective Climate Superfund laws. This Comment analyzes four claims raised in the complaints, which present robust constitutional questions, and concludes that the new laws may be struck down due to issues of federal preclusion and preemption. Although the court may well find that no Due Process Clause or Commerce Clause issues are implicated, it need only find one constitutional problem to invalidate the state laws at issue. While these Climate Superfund laws will likely not survive review in the Second Circuit, similar state laws may survive review elsewhere.

Cities are significantly hotter than their surrounding areas. That difference, known as the “urban heat island” effect, is driven in significant part by the dark-colored buildings, sidewalks, roadways, and similar surfaces that dominate urban spaces, absorbing solar energy and later radiating it outward as thermal energy that heats the nearby air. This Comment suggests and describes one avenue through which cities and local community-based organizations (CBOs) could tackle extreme heat: partnering with one another to transform paved surfaces into green or reflective ones. Partnerships of this kind could combine the resources and desire to create green spaces that nongovernmental groups offer with cities’ large portfolios of property.

Through a novel yet controversial application of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), in June the federal government disapproved the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) waiver for California’s 2022 zero emission vehicle mandate. The state sued to overturn that disapproval, arguing that the federal government abused its authority under the CRA. This Article argues that California is likely to lose the statutory aspects of its litigation due to judicial rulings in 2007, when California’s original 2004 climate rule was upheld. It then argues that the loss will not be crippling because California has other tools at its disposal to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. The state can issue a revised rule that is not substantially the same as the one disapproved by the U.S. Congress, which likely would require the state to win a subsequent lawsuit against the Trump EPA. A more promising strategy for California is new demand side policies, such as feebates and mileage fees with adjustments for fuel efficiency. The Article explains how the state can adopt targeted tax reforms with only a remote risk of preemption under federal law.

Executive Order No. 14241, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, attempts to create a prominent role for the federal government in accelerating and expanding domestic mineral development and processing. Like other recent EOs, it substantially relies on inherent, unenumerated executive authority, leaving doubts about whether it can accomplish its stated goals. This Article examines the Order, the authority it claims, and likely legal challenges against both the Order and agency actions taken to implement it, in the context of both past and current litigation involving similar EOs. It also discusses practical considerations for the Administration’s proposed federal control of national mining and mineral industries on an expedited basis.

Criminal law has been widely used around the world to protect nature, but how to structure it for optimal protection remains unclear. This Article proposes a framework for applying criminal liability to offenders who create a risk of harm or harm to nature. First, it offers three models for liability, including abstract endangering, actual endangering, and independent/autonomous crime. Second, criminal penalties applied should be effective, dissuasive, and proportionate, including fines and imprisonment as well as remedies that restore the original state of nature and prevent future damage. Third, when corporations commit crimes against natural resources, both the corporations and individuals involved should be subject to criminal liability. The Article finds features of the framework within international and regional instruments, such as (1) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, (2) the Rome Statute, (3) the Conventions on the Protection of the Environment Through Criminal Law, and (4) the Environmental Crime Directives. However, several problems can impede enforcement of criminal nature conservation laws, including (1) limited capacity and knowledge of judicial authorities; (2) lack of deterrence/dissuasion of potential offenders; (3) poor enforcement at the national level; and (4) lack of international cooperation.