The Fifth Circuit upheld a rule issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission prohibiting the manufacture and sale of children's toys and childcare articles that contained concentrations of more than 0.1% of any one of five phthalates, but remanded the rule to the Commission to address two proced...
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Biden Administration's request to cancel arguments and suspend further proceedings in a lawsuit concerning the Trump Administration's plans to build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border., full_html...
The appropriate use of science in policymaking depends upon integrity in scientific research and in the ways in which that research is communicated and applied throughout the policymaking process. On May 22, 2019, the University of California, Irvine School of Law’s Center for Land, Environment, and Natural Resources (CLEANR) and the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) convened a roundtable that brought together leading scientists, scholars, advocates, and policymakers to explore potential safeguards to protect scientific research and its use in feder
This Article discusses the Trump Administration’s main actions to undermine the role of science in public policy and the consequences for cost-benefit analysis involving climate change policies. It analyzes the specific attacks on science and their impact on relevant policies, namely, the rollbacks of the Clean Water Rule, the pesticides ban, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Power Plan, as well as modification of the National Environmental Policy Act and regulations promoting fuel efficiency, and the flexibilization of environmental enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As in prior years, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 contains a variety of provisions setting U.S. Department of Defense priorities for energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. These include measures that represent some degree of consensus on these often-politicized topics.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and complex machine learning algorithms have come to play a profound role in many of our day-to-day activities.
The COVID-19 pandemic will have far-reaching and even transformative implications for environmental law.
The Ninth Circuit overturned a ruling denying EPA's motion to modify an injunction requiring it to promulgate a federal landfill emissions plan by November 6, 2019. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Agency's request for relief because EPA promulgat...
As companies increase their environmental, social, governance (ESG) reporting and statements in response to market and shareholder demands, plaintiffs have pursued with growing success legal challenges to company claims and disclosures related to ESG performance. Similarly, inventive theories are being put forward to directly attack companies for alleged ESG-related performance and operational deficiencies. In both arenas, there has been a recent growth in efforts to hold companies accountable for supplier misconduct.
This Article tackles a question that has vexed the administrative state for the last half-century: how to seriously take account of the distributional consequences of regulation. The academic literature has largely accepted the view that distributional concerns should be moved out of the regulatory domain and into Congress’ tax policy portfolio. In doing so, it has overlooked the fact that tax policy is ill-suited to provide compensation for significant environmental, health, and safety harms.