In this blog, 2L staffer Braden Porter argues that courts reviewing pesticide registrations under the EPA should consider staying judgments, rather than vacating during active growing seasons. Porter explains that while vacatur can correct agency actions, the timing of the decisions can harm farmers who rely on federal registrations to plan for the planting and growing seasons. He argues that courts should exercise their discretion to delay the effects of vacatur and preserve their authority, while preventing disruption to seasonal industries such as agriculture.
In this blog, 2L staffer Luke Glasscock discusses how a nearly century-old safety net for farmers, dating back to the first farm bill in 1933, has given way to a federal crop insurance program that disproportionately benefits large farming operations. Glasscock contends that if federal crop insurance discouraged risk-taking in agricultural practices and subsidy caps were placed on large farms, not only could this economy of scale be reduced, but also more attention could be given to high-risk small farms.
In this blog, 2L staffer Jack Klier illustrates how the practice of home distillation brings up constitutional questions of taxation, public safety issues, and potential federal overreach. While a recent United States District Court ruling has raised important questions about Congress’s enumerated powers, Klier argues that the ruling is likely not strong enough on its merits to convince the Supreme Court to depart from its decision in Wickard.
In this blog, 3L Staffer Luke Price discusses the growing use of prediction-market platforms that allow users to profit from horse-race outcomes while operating outside traditional pari-mutuel wagering systems. Price argues that these event-contract trades function as wagering under the Interstate Horseracing Act and should therefore be subject to racing-commission oversight and consent requirements. He contends that without clarification or enforcement, prediction markets could undermine the regulatory framework designed to protect racing integrity and equine welfare.
In this blog, 2L Staffer Georgia Arrington discusses how the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has missed its mark by neglecting to include golf course workers as a covered group under its Worker Protection Standards (WPS). In excluding these workers and excluding golf courses that are not used for sod production from the WPS, Arrington argues FIFRA is failing to provide meaningful protection from the dangers of pesticides on golf courses. Arrington illustrates that if the increased rates of Parkinson’s disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in this cohort are not enough to demand regulatory reform, the EPA's continued approval of pesticides banned in other sectors but still used on golf courses certainly should be.
