A case study exemplifying the broader judicial confusion as to the application of the political question doctrine in climate change litigation.
Last month, the Trump Administration reinterpreted when a major source of hazardous air pollutants may be regulated less stringently. The policy change failed to provide an adequate explanation and thus would likely be remanded to the agency for further consideration and explanation should it be challenged in court.
The oil and gas industry has recently shifted its position on whether to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration.
The Georgetown Environmental Law Review is pleased to present the latest edition of the Georgetown Environmental Law Review Online Supplement. Click below to view the article as a PDF or download […]
The Environment Under a Trump Presidency: Looking Ahead By Looking Back to the Reagan Administration By Gary Dreyzin, Staff Contributor The upcoming Trump administration has given rise to new concerns […]
The Tale of Many Donalds and the Hopeful Environmentalist By Dylan Handelsman, Staff Contributor “On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal […]
Sit Back, Relax, and Take a Deep Breath: Challenges and Opportunities for an Invisible Public Health Crisis By Louise Walter, Staff Contributor Our lives — not to mention our daily wellbeing […]
Fairly Compensating Sun Power: Challenges to Rooftop Solar Development By Howard Crystal, Contributor and Principal at the Law Office of Howard Crystal INTRODUCTION Rooftop solar power has the potential to […]
The Sine Qua Non of Climate Diplomacy, Part II By Kevin Spinella, Staff Contributor On the eve of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, the United States and China announced they […]
Paying to Play: Why Commercialization Cannot Pass for Conservation By Tara Lewis, Managing Editor “If you love something set it free; then, when it has a bit of a head […]