Among the many detrimental impacts from climate change, sea-level rise is one of the most damaging, costly, and devastating. Sea-level change poses particular challenges for coastal communities, and is becoming more prevalent in environmental law. Existing scientific literature about how sea-level change works can often be inaccessible to the people that need it. In addition, each coastal community experiences a unique combination of global, regional, and local factors that define sea-level change.

Sea-level rise is a common denominator that prompts two related but distinct types of coastal migration: (1) wealthy coastal communities that retreat inland to ensure their physical and economic security while encroaching on the neighborhoods of existing vulnerable communities; and (2) vulnerable Native Alaskan communities that relocate inland to ensure their survival while striving to retain their cultural identity.

As the United States and the global community figure out how to address climate migration, local governments can and have already been preparing for it. Planning for climate migrants is a part of climate resilience. This Comment calls on local governments, community groups, and individuals to make a stand for how their communities will address climate change, focusing on climate migration. Local governments have tremendous power when it comes to future development.

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, concluding that courts have a constitutional and statutory obligation to exercise their “independent judgment” when deciding whether a federal administrative agency has acted within its statutory authority. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in concurrence, the Court’s decision “places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” This Comment discusses the Court’s decision and its implications for legal challenges to federal agency actions. 

This abstract, which is adapted from Alexander Gouzoules, Going Concerns and Environmental Concerns: Mitigating Climate Change Through Bankruptcy Reform, 62 B.C. L. Rev. 2169 (2022), examines how legislative reforms to the Bankruptcy Code could mitigate the effects of climate change, speed the adoption of renewable energy, and contribute to the United States’ compliance with the Paris Agreement of 2015.

The Joseph Biden Administration has signaled an interest in ensuring that regulations appropriately benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. Prior presidential administrations have focused on ensuring that regulations are efficient, maximizing the net benefits to society, without considering who benefits or who loses from these policies. Supporters of the current process are concerned that pursuing equity will come at significant cost to efficiency and ultimately leave everyone worse off. This framework—efficiency versus equity—is misguided and counterproductive in many cases.

This Article, which is adapted from Goran Dominioni & Daniel C. Esty, Designing Effective Border Carbon Adjustment Mechanisms: Aligning the Global Trade and Climate Change Regimes, 65 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (2023), proposes a taxonomy of approaches to comparing climate policies implemented in the importing and the exporting countries and analyzes their relative strengths.

This Comment touches on some of the key concerns that Dave Owen's The Negotiable Implementation of Environmental Law raised about equity and transparency in environmental law, and shares a couple of examples that have emerged in the last few months that people are inventing to try to address this.

Black letter law is implemented in countless shades of gray, with interpretation and negotiation at virtually every step of the way. Prof. Dave Owen’s The Negotiable Implementation of Environmental Law digs deep, beyond the obvious, to underscore that negotiation is not a dark art but a necessary skill that deserves more attention and training.

Dave Owen's The Negotiable Implementation of Environmental Law did a nice job of highlighting some of the major statutes that are the backbone of our practice and the launching point for effective negotiation. One of the implications of the article that highlights the axiom “wake up . . . people are negotiating” is to understand that promulgation of the law by regulations is not the end point.