Scientific communities and policy experts argue that marine protected areas (MPAs) will increase the potential of marine ecosystems to tackle climate change impacts. Yet to date, there has been little legal scholarship about how to design, manage, and implement climate-resilient MPAs. This Article underscores the importance of considering climate change in the design, planning, and implementation of MPAs, and identifies mechanisms for incorporating climate change elements into MPAs.

This Article focuses on an area of rapidly evolving jurisprudence—climate liability litigation. It examines in depth the state attorney general’s complaint filed in Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. in 2018, alleging various state-law tort claims. It explores the intensely sustained legal battles taking place between states and fossil fuel companies over whether federal courts or state courts should have jurisdiction, which in many respects is the “ballgame issue” for both plaintiffs and defendants.

People, businesses, cities, and states are increasingly burdened by extreme weather events. Drought, heat, wildfires, precipitation, hurricanes, and tornadoes are becoming more intense. Most analysts point toward an emerging trend: as the earth warms, extreme weather events are becoming more costly and more deadly, though some raise lingering uncertainties about linking climate change to specific types of weather or specific events.

This October Term, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on three and possibly all four of its pending original jurisdiction controversies over interstate waters. The Court’s past judgments and opinions have established little in the way of “federal common law” governing the states’ interests in shared waters. But they have established this much: these interests vest in states-as-states directly under the U.S. Constitution, even if the Court itself is reluctant to specify the interests with much precision or to enjoin violations thereof.

With a contentious presidential election looming amidst a pandemic, economic worries, and historic protests against systemic racism, climate action may seem less pressing than other challenges. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court held, 6-3, that the Clean Water Act requires a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit “when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.” The Court also decided Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, holding, 7-2, that landowners adjacent to a Superfund site were potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.