Despite the budget’s existential tie to the administrative state and OMB’s central role in the annual process surrounding the budget—from development to execution, legal literature devotes little attention to either. In her article, Prof. Eloise Pasachoff attempts to reverse this inattentiveness. This Comment adds more completeness by acknowledging context and complexity that the article either misses or minimizes, and offers three global comments regarding: (1) atomization, (2) accountability, and (3) agenda setting.

This Comment critiques the OMB reforms suggested by Prof. Eloise Pasachoff.

This Article expands the view of centralized control of the administrative state by describing, categorizing, and analyzing the processes by which OMB uses the budget to get "in the stream of every policy decision made by the federal government." The Article then assesses OMB’s budget work against administrative law values and offers recommendations for how this work can better foster accountability.

This Comment provides an overview of the securities disclosures framework and how upcoming regulations might fit in.

This Comment discusses the far-reaching implications of Prof. James Coleman's study of the corporate "two audience" problem.

This Comment attempts to mitigate the disconnect between company sustainability reports and risk statements in their Annual Reports using the "two audience" dilemma discussed in Colemans "How Cheap Is Corporate Talk? Comparing Companies’ Comments on Regulations With Their Securities Disclosures."

When a public company describes the impact of a proposed regulation it must consider two audiences: regulators and investors. These conflicting incentives may lead to inconsistent messages. Oil companies facing costly regulations tailor their messages to each audience, emphasizing the cost and economic danger of regulation to regulators while telling shareholders that regulation is merely a cost of doing business with few negative impacts.

This Comment looks at Montgomery County, Maryland, and its current policies to discuss the viability of climate exactions.

This Comment explores climate exactions and the other ways cities already control the emissions of greenhouse gases.

This Comment examines the legal viability of climate exactions and likelihood of their success.