Editors' Summary: Every year since the advent of modern environmental law, the U.S. Supreme Court has been called on to resolve controversies surrounding a variety of subjects, such as hazardous waste cleanup, water pollution, air pollution, water rights, mining claims, and land use. And every year, the Court seems to decide one or more environmental or environmentally related cases that significantly affect the field of environmental law. The Court's 1997-1998 Term was no different.

Editors' Summary: The ESA is simultaneously the most popular and most hated of environmental statutes. Conservationists fervently support the ESA's mission of preventing the extinction of our country's fish, wildlife, and plants, but private landowners subject to ESA restrictions claim that the Act unfairly and illogically restricts the use of their valuable property. As the agency with primary responsibility for the ESA's administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is caught between both sides.

Editors' Summary: Although there were several distractions for the U.S. Supreme Court to handle this Term, the Court managed to stay focused and perform its role as the highest power of the Judicial Branch. The Court's environmental docket for the 1998-1999 Term was slower than some previous Terms, but the Court still played an integral role in shaping environmental law. This Term, the Court issued opinions in 6 environmental or environmentally related cases, and denied review in over 40 such cases.

Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are changing the earth's climate in ways that could lead to catastrophe. The United States is the largest emitter of these gases, producing almost one-fourth of worldwide emissions of CO2, the dominant greenhouse gas. Power plants alone account for one-third of total U.S.

In American Trucking Ass'n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ATA I), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit shocked the administrative and environmental law worlds. There, the court, in a 2-1 decision, remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for reconsideration of its new air quality standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for ozone and particulate matter. Subsequently, the court, sitting en banc, modified ATA I, but narrowly refused to grant rehearing (ATA II).

I. Introduction

Editors' Summary: On July 15, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles, thereby thwarting efforts to use the CAA to curb climate change. In this Article, Zachary Tyler analyzes the court's decision, arguing that the court should have reached the opposite conclusion. Tyler looks at the events that led to the dispute, including how the Clinton and Bush Administrations differed in their interpretation of the CAA with respect to GHGs.

Editors' Summary: With its ruling in the 1995 Godavarman case, the Supreme Court of India commandeered for itself the roles of policymaker, administrator, and interpreter of the law. The Court's actions pursuant to this ruling have had serious effects on India's forest policy. In this Article, Armin Rosencranz, Edward Boenig, and Brinda Dutta explore the ramifications of the Supreme Court's actions. The authors begin with an overview of changes in forest policy following the 1995 ruling and describe the deleterious effects that these changes have had on Indian forests.

For at least a decade, states have exercised de facto national leadership on climate change policy development. Through comprehensive planning, intensive fact-finding, and stakeholder-based consensus-building, they have developed and refined a broad range of laws and policies intended to advance climate, energy, and economic policy objectives simultaneously. The recommended portfolios of actions derived from this work, involving more than one-half of all U.S.

I. Introduction

My nomination and appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court were not widely publicized. My collegiality was never held in high regard. My experience is limited but I think I understand the ways of nature and the use of language in treaty writings. I have listened for a sympathetic voice on this Court but I have not heard one. I will limit my dissents to seven. I will include one case from the 2002-2003 Term but will hold my tongue on many others. --Crazy Horse, J.