The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the difficult mission of crafting complex environmental rules and regulations while considering the economic costs of those actions. The Agency must also engage in law enforcement functions to enforce these rules and regulations to ensure compliance, punish appropriately, and deter future offenders. Most of these enforcement actions rely on civil remedies to gain compliance, such as negotiating consent decrees or issuing civil penalties. In cases of willful, chronic, or serious offenses, the Agency can seek criminal penalties.

The role that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) plays in regulatory decisionmaking is at a crossroads, as is the role played by the agency that oversees its implementation, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The Trump Administration has largely demonstrated agnosticism toward CBA; this has left many to question whether OIRA can still play the role of ensuring quality analysis while serving as the eyes and ears of the president in overseeing regulation.

The United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union is anticipated to have a breadth of impacts on its environmental law and policy. Proponents point to opportunities ahead for the government to draft and enact U.K.-specific environmental laws and regulations that are more attuned to issues facing the country. Others believe the departure could lead to deregulation, a lack of consistency and stability, and potential decreases in advances made.

Cities around the world are looking to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions from vehicles through the use of low emission zones and congestion pricing. These strategies have been employed to great success abroad, including in central London, where both congestion pricing and fees and restrictions on higheremitting vehicles are in effect. In the U.S. law context, these policy approaches give rise to significant legal issues that have not been well-explored. This Article proposes that these policy approaches be called “Low Traffic Zones” (LTZs), and surveys those legal considerations.

The Trump Administration has aggressively rolled back prior administrations’ environmental regulations and natural resource policies, and critics of this agenda have turned to the judiciary. A remarkable string of federal court decisions has faulted the Administration for failing to follow the standard for agency policy change articulated in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

This Article reviews the legal and environmental issues in bankruptcy matters involving: (1) a trustee responsible for dispersing funds to stakeholders, including those responsible for addressing environmental liabilities; or (2) alleged fraudulent transfer actions claiming inadequate environmental cost projections for environmental liabilities. In the first instance, the trustee must assign current costs for necessary and appropriate actions to achieve regulatory closure so that excess funds can be distributed to remaining stakeholders.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) reaffirmed its emphasis on environmental protection in a decision adopted by the fourth plenum of its 19th Central Committee, held in December 2019.1 Part 10 of this decision specifically addresses environmental protection under the topic of Developing a System of Rules for Ecological Civilization, and consists of an introductory paragraph and four additional paragraphs calling for (1) the most stringent legal rules for environmental protection, (2) rules on the efficient use of resources, (3) rules on ecological protection and restoration, and (4) rules o

In the first decades of the 21st century, those working to assure that earth continues to be a viable home for humanity as well as for all other life have been in a crisis regarding their purpose and direction. This is a departure from the past century and a half, when the giants of conservation and environmental protection—personalities such as John Muir, Rachel Carson, and David Brower— were certain of their cause and the actions needed to sustain it.

The recent passing of William D. Ruckelshaus has recalled and re-invited comparisons between the Trump and Nixon presidencies. Although Ruckelshaus might be most widely remembered for the “Saturday Night Massacre,” a review of his career in the Nixon and Reagan Administrations demonstrates a through-line of sound administration and independent regulatory leadership, at times in contrast to or in spite of his political environment.

This Article analyzes the recent proliferation of “tag-gag” laws aimed at undermining the emerging plantbased and cell-based food industries. It examines potential constitutional challenges to these laws, including those based on the First Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Due Process Clause, as well as the likely arguments that states will proffer in their defense. It concludes with a discussion of the consequences and implications of various outcomes of these cases, and how animal advocates can responsibly bring these types of constitutional challenges.