Each October, the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term. And each year, the Environmental Law Institute convenes a national seminar with some of the preeminent experts on the Supreme Court and environmental law to examine the potential significance for environmental law of both the Court’s rulings from its past term, as well as the cases already on the Court’s docket for its new term. This year’s panel, co-sponsored by Harvard Law School, was held on October 25, 2012, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The panel discussed the Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v.

The REACH regulation in Europe is a unique product of the European system and European political compromises, so that REACH would be very difficult to replicate in the United States. There are no substantial discussions about doing so in the United States today. Thus, any lessons learned from REACH would be much more helpful if they were directed to the TSCA reform proposals actually being discussed in the United States rather than to the report's hypothetical effort to replicate REACH.

It is entirely appropriate to consider how REACH may influence reconsideration of the U.S. chemical regulatory environment, and the report provides some critical insights. But REACH is not the only consideration—Canada’s Chemical Management Plan should be considered as well. Further, REACH should be considered from a practitioner’s, not an academic’s, perspective to learn lessons relevant to U.S. chemicals management.

Should Europe’s chemicals law, called REACH, be considered by U.S. policymakers interested in reform of TSCA? The new REACH registration process, while burdensome, is more workable than was originally feared. However, it appears that REACH is much more complex than it needs to be to accomplish its objectives. U.S. policymakers should consider simplifications of the REACH program.

On March 21, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review and requests for depublication of the Second District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust et al. v. City of Los Angeles. Ballona Wetlands held that the environment’s effects on a proposed project do not have to be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thereby creating the likelihood that a wide range of impacts previously analyzed in CEQA documents will now be considered outside CEQA’s statutory authority. This Article analyzes the

In July 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Order No. 1000, the latest in a series of orders directed at improving federal transmission access, planning, and coordination. Order 1000 requires, for the first time, that electricity transmission providers engage in regionwide transmission planning, and further mandates that such planning consider how federal and state public policies affect transmission needs. Public utility transmission providers are now in the process of amending their operating tariffs to comply with this new order.

On March 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and settled the question of whether “pre-enforcement” judicial review is available for an administrative compliance order issued under §309(a)(3) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Despite much speculation by commenters, questions remain as to what the decision means for enforcement under the affected programs.

In early September 2011, President Barack Obama rejected EPA’s draft rule to reconsider the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) based on the OIRA’s recommendation. The letter from OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein cites regulatory uncertainty and resulting implementation costs as reasons for its rejection, despite the fact that the CAA does not permit EPA to consider implementation costs in promulgating NAAQS. Based on the Supreme Court and D.C.

In March 2012, Iowa and Utah passed “Ag-Gag” laws in response to a series of high-profile undercover investigations of farms by animal activists. The laws were framed as generally applicable fraud prohibitions. But their aim was clear: to stop animal activists exposing the treatment of animals on industrial-scale farms. A constitutional challenge to the laws now seems likely. A court hearing such a challenge should subject the Ag-Gag laws to heightened First Amendment scrutiny under the news gathering framework of Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. The laws cannot survive such scrutiny.

The Article III standing doctrine is hindering judicial resolution of climate change harms. Imposing Article III standing requirements onto movants seeking to intervene in ongoing cases further narrows an increasingly narrow field of options for litigants to engage federal courts in implementing climate change solutions. A flexible application of intervention rules, which would not require all prospective intervenors to demonstrate their own Article III standing, could support efforts to systematically address the large-scale problem of climate change.