On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases discuss the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and will decide “[w]hether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.” The potential overruling or limiting of Chevron deference would have major consequences for environmental and regulatory law. On January 29, 2024, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts who discussed these cases, takeaways from oral argument, and predictions for how the Court might rule. This Dialogue presents a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

On October 7, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the most far-reaching corporate climate disclosure (CCD) requirements in the United States. This so-called California Climate Accountability Package consists of the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (Senate Bill (SB) 253), which requires certain companies to disclose greenhouse gas emission data, and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), which requires certain companies to disclose climate-related financial risks. This Comment provides background information on SB 253 and SB 261, discusses the inadequate CCD regime in the United States, and explains the benefits of state CCD mandates for both increasing corporate transparency and enhancing climate policy. It also analyzes SB 253 and SB 261 under modern First Amendment doctrine, and argues that these laws should not be invalidated on First Amendment grounds. It further contends that even if they are struck down, SB 253 and SB 261 may nevertheless succeed in increasing CCDs.

Concerned by methane’s potent climate-altering emissions, a growing number of states and municipalities have embraced the phaseout of natural gas as a tool to mitigate climate change. But in April 2023, the California Restaurant Association successfully petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the city of Berkeley’s ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The three-judge panel found the ban preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and in January 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied Berkeley’s petition for rehearing. Armed with a successful legal claim, industry is primed to challenge other state and local gas prohibitions. This Article weighs the panel’s reasoning in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s text-based jurisprudence and argues the decision may prove to be a flash in the pan.

Over the last three decades, numerous studies have concluded that African American, Hispanic, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and working-class White communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. More recent studies have concluded that although the adverse effects of climate change are being felt throughout the United States, they are not evenly distributed. This Article explores how several states have initiated climate justice litigation to address this issue. Specifically, it examines how Rhode Island, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia have filed state-law claims against fossil fuel companies, asking state courts to consider liability, compensation, and remedies for harms related to climate change. It concludes that tribes, acting as sovereigns, may also want to consider climate justice litigation.