This Comment takes up two recent conflicting developments: the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which was designed to undercut present and future federal climate action, and Congress’ surprising countermove passing climate legislation in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act, which has dramatically accelerated development of the rule of law around climate change in the United States.

On the final day of the 2021-2022 term, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. The majority (6-3) opinion limited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under Clean Air Act §111(d), in part by invoking the “major questions doctrine.” The decision has implications for EPA’s authority both to regulate emissions from stationary sources and to regulate greenhouse gases more broadly.

While the environmental justice movement has gained traction in the United States, the relationship between agri-food systems and environmental injustices in rural areas has yet to come into focus. This Article explores the relationship between U.S. agricultural exceptionalism and rural environmental justice through examining right-to-farm laws.

Climate impacts in the United States disproportionately fall on low-income communities and communities of color. As the costs of climate adaptation mount, municipalities and states have brought litigation against fossil fuel companies to recover for extensive damage caused by climate change. Drawing on lessons from previous tobacco and asbestos suits, this Article argues that damages litigation—while properly heard in state courts—has significant shortcomings as an equitable climate change adaptation strategy.

This Comment examines the legal framework for state protection of nonfederal waters and its implications for cooperative federalism. After a brief overview and legal background, it identifies some recent state actions that attempt to fill gaps in coverage created by changes in federal interpretations of the Clean Water Act. It then summarizes the current scope of state regulation of waters in every state, in order to discern the likely impact of changes at the federal level on the status of waters in the states.

This Article, adapted from Leo E. Strine Jr., Kirby M. Smith, and Reilly S. Steel, Caremark and ESG, Perfect Together: A Practical Approach to Implementing an Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Caremark and EESG, 106 Iowa L. Rev. 18853 (2021), and used with permission, proposes a way of thinking about "EESG" that promotes ethical, fair, and sustainable behavior without heaping additional work on already-stretched employees and directors.

This abstract is adapted from Victor B. Flatt, Holding Polluters Accountable in Times of Climate and COVID Risk: The Problems With “Emergency” Enforcement Waivers, 12 San Diego J. Climate & Energy L. 1 (2021), and used with permission.

Leo Strine, Kirby Smith, and Reilly Steel make an important contribution to the corporate governance literature.

In Caremark and ESG, Perfect Together: A Practical Approach to Implementing an Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Caremark EESG Strategy, Leo Strine and co-authors frame a board’s duty of oversight for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues in light of the common-law duties articulated under Caremark. The landmark Caremark decision articulated that corporations and their directors have a duty to implement and monitor compliance programs to ensure that the company honors its legal obligations.

This Comment is based on an edited transcription of Chandra Taylor-Sawyer’s remarks at the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review conference. See 2021-2022 Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review Conference, available at https://www.eli.org/ environmental-law-policy-annual-review/2021-2022-ELPAR-conference.