This Article discusses the Trump Administration’s main actions to undermine the role of science in public policy and the consequences for cost-benefit analysis involving climate change policies. It analyzes the specific attacks on science and their impact on relevant policies, namely, the rollbacks of the Clean Water Rule, the pesticides ban, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Power Plan, as well as modification of the National Environmental Policy Act and regulations promoting fuel efficiency, and the flexibilization of environmental enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As in prior years, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 contains a variety of provisions setting U.S. Department of Defense priorities for energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. These include measures that represent some degree of consensus on these often-politicized topics.

State wildlife agencies commonly claim they are entitled to manage wildlife under the public trust doctrine (PTD). This assertion is frequently made in judicial proceedings, with state requests that their managerial authority be given due force throughout state, private, federal, and even tribal lands. One might conclude that a rich body of PTD practices and policies exists for wildlife; in reality, the PTD in state wildlife management proves to be ephemeral.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and complex machine learning algorithms have come to play a profound role in many of our day-to-day activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic will have far-reaching and even transformative implications for environmental law.

As companies increase their environmental, social, governance (ESG) reporting and statements in response to market and shareholder demands, plaintiffs have pursued with growing success legal challenges to company claims and disclosures related to ESG performance. Similarly, inventive theories are being put forward to directly attack companies for alleged ESG-related performance and operational deficiencies. In both arenas, there has been a recent growth in efforts to hold companies accountable for supplier misconduct.

This Article tackles a question that has vexed the administrative state for the last half-century: how to seriously take account of the distributional consequences of regulation. The academic literature has largely accepted the view that distributional concerns should be moved out of the regulatory domain and into Congress’ tax policy portfolio. In doing so, it has overlooked the fact that tax policy is ill-suited to provide compensation for significant environmental, health, and safety harms.