It is no secret that the chemicals present in pesticides can damage environmental and human health. Preventing this damage is why the process of registering pesticides is so crucial. In National Family Farm Coalition v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) registration of the new pesticide Enlist Duo.
Advisory committees serve vital roles in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies. At EPA, advisory committees review the scientific basis of the agency’s decision making, revise air quality standards, and advise the agency on its research program, among other functions. In 2017, EPA issued a directive titled “Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees” (“Directive”). The Directive announced that EPA would no longer allow EPA grant recipients to serve on the agency’s advisory committees. This policy resulted in an apparent industry tilt on EPA scientific committees after grant-receiving academic scientists were removed and replaced with scientists with industry ties. The Directive was ultimately the subject of three separate lawsuits, all which resulted either in the Directive being struck down or in the reversal of a trial court decision in favor of EPA.
My decision to write about the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in the fall of 2020 launched the beginning of an academic journey marked by several unexpected twists and turns. I originally chose to write about the CRA because, like many political theorists at the time, I was curious whether a Democrat-controlled Congress and presidency might utilize the CRA to rescind Trump-era agency rules (just as the Republican-led 115th Congress did for Obama-era regulations in 2017). But while I was intrigued by the possibility of using the CRA to strengthen environmental protections in the short term, I was terrified by the long-term implications of reinstating what is essentially a legislative veto.
In McGirt v. Oklahoma, parties disputed sovereignty over a criminal defendant for a crime committed on contested native lands. In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court held that large parts of Oklahoma fell under tribal criminal jurisdiction previously unrecognized. The ruling was widely celebrated amid growing support for indigenous land rights. Over the last few decades, the United States has seen a rebirth of the Land Back Movement, which pushes for the restoration of native land rights to tribes.