Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

Climate Change Disinformation Liability Under the Federal Trade Commission Act

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.

Unpacking the Revised WOTUS Rule

On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a direct final rule that revised the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) definition rule. This rule amended the final WOTUS rule, previously published in January 2023, to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s May decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. On September 14, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to analyze the new rule and discuss its regulatory and policy consequences.

Leveraging Earth Law Principles to Protect Ocean Rights

Communities around the world are seeking to acknowledge nature’s rights through legal tools and litigation. This Article provides an overview of recent developments in earth law movements, including Rights of Nature, Rights of Rivers, and Ocean Rights, and considers the potential impacts these ecocentric conservation measures could have on Indigenous peoples and local communities.

Sackett and the Unraveling of Federal Environmental Law

On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped an absolute bombshell with its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Early assessments of Sackett underscore two vital points: much has been lost for wetlands protection, and much has changed with respect to the Court’s broader environmental law jurisprudence. This Comment delves into both of these issues, providing some background on the unique and long-running controversy that was at the heart of Sackett, and parsing the four opinions from the case.