The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Climate Disclosure Rule has provoked heated controversy on many fronts. Several commenters have argued that the First Amendment precludes the SEC from demanding climate-related disclosures. This Article grapples with the unsettled state of “compelled commercial speech” doctrine, arguing that the rule’s constitutionality should be scrutinized using the prevailing rational basis test, and that even under the intermediate scrutiny test, the rule should be upheld.

U.S.-Canadian management of marine migratory species is a particularly rich place to understand the complex relationship between migratory science, conservation, and law. The two nations share a large border, have a long-lasting historic friendship, and already collaborate extensively. However, the relationship is not without contention. The substantial economic interests in the oceans and differences in governance structure have not infrequently frustrated efforts at cooperative management.

Oil companies and their agents have been actively involved in creating and propagating climate change disinformation for the past half-century. In response to this deception, more than two dozen American states and cities have sued these companies under traditional tort-based causes of action like public nuisance, fraud, negligence, and failure to warn, alleging that the companies fueled uncertainty about climate science and undercut public support for necessary climate action.