This essay explains the Supreme Court decision requiring agency to determine if an area is a species' "habitat" before it can be designated as critical habitat under the ESA and provides suggestions for how to define habitat, which is not done by statute or regulation.
This essay discusses ways to respond to zero-sum thinking, in which local communities face economic hardship from the demand to reduce environmental impacts for the benefit of the greater good.
This essay discusses how NEPA, the ESA and other procedrual environmental laws have become inapplicable "at the borders" by recounting the legal context of the Keystone pipeline and border wall.
This article argues that an exclusive focus on public governance and advocacy will miss opportunities to affect large aspects of the modern regulatory landscape and suggests that private advocacy and private governance will play a growing role in environmental law and policy as the federal role in environmental protection shrinks.