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.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s May ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency sharply limited the scope of the federal Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s) protection for the nation’s waters. The Court redefined the Act’s coverage of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), effectively removing protection from many wetlands that have been covered under the Act for almost a half century. On June 8, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts that analyzed the consequences of Sackett and discussed what actions can be taken to protect non-WOTUS waters.

The name of the climate game right now is fast, sustained progress. The world needs this both politically and technologically to effectively fight climate change. Progress was achieved both politically and technologically with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which allocated $369 billion to “energy security and climate change,” amounting to the United States’ largest investment in climate action to date.

Carbon offsets allow polluters to pay someone else to reduce, avoid, or remove emissions to counterbalance their own emissions. For some, carbon accounting concerns render offsets a necessary evil to be tightly regulated on the path toward decarbonization. For others, moral and political concerns render offsets a dangerous mistake to be thrown out of the climate law toolbox.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 added seven new sections to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with substantial new authorities and resources. This Article examines these new amendments and the EPA-related provisions of the IRA, and explains the major implications of this historic legislation.

October 18, 2022, marked the anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the primary federal law governing pollution control and quality of the waters of the United States. Though the Act has achieved vital successes, whether they can be sustained and how further progress can be made remain fundamental questions. On October 25, 2022, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts at its 2022 Annual Policy Forum to evaluate the past 50 years of the CWA, while looking ahead to the next 50 years.

On October 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a petition filed by several states and coal companies attacking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court’s holding in this case would determine EPA’s continued ability to use the CAA—including the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) program—as a climate change tool.

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.

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.