Article by: Steven Ferrey

In this article, Professor of law Steven Ferrey examines the intense legal and constitutional conflicts surrounding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (“FERC”) Order 1920. The controversial regional electric transmission planning rule has triggered an unprecedented wave of state challenges over the vertical separation of powers. Ferrey details how the rule crosses the Supreme Court’s "bright line" dividing federal rate-setting from traditional state land-use and permitting authority. He argues that the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine, established in West Virginia v. EPA, and its recent overruling of Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo leave FERC's sweeping policy agenda with virtually no legal defense. This article also examines FERC Commissioner and future Chairman Mark Christie's opposition regarding the agency's constitutional overreach, which has given legal ammunition to challengers of the Commission’s recent order. Ultimately, Ferrey presents three pragmatic "work arounds" to bypass infrastructure delays and meet clean energy goals.

Note By: Samuel Larrabee

In this Note, Samuel Larrabee examines the escalating environmental and recreational crisis of overcrowding in America's national parks. With annual visitation surging past 92 million, tourists are disproportionately crowding into a handful of popular destinations, causing severe trail erosion and gridlock traffic. Larrabee argues that Congress missed a critical opportunity to address this crisis with the EXPLORE Act of 2025, which primarily focuses on expanding outdoor access rather than conservation. To manage overcrowding directly, he proposes delegating explicit interpretive authority to individual park managers—a strategy he argues remains legally viable even after Loper Bright v. Raimondo. This Note also explores indirect solutions, highlighting Utah's legal battles to challenge perpetual federal land ownership and transfer public lands to state control. Ultimately, Larrabee contends that more efficient state management would generate revenues to support local gateway communities and fund targeted campaigns to redirect tourists away from oversaturated parks.

Note By: Camille Grout

In this Note, Camille Grout examines the escalating global threat of antimicrobial resistance, warning that the overuse of medically important antibiotics in American livestock farming poses a severe risk to human health. She argues that the current U.S. legal framework is dangerously weak, pointing out that the sole federal statute on the issue lacks enforcement power and relies entirely on voluntary, non-binding guidelines. To illustrate a path forward, Grout highlights Sweden’s highly successful "One Health" approach, which utilizes binding laws and coordinated agency oversight to drastically reduce agricultural antibiotic use. To replicate this success, she outlines three distinct paths to integrate binding regulatory mechanisms into the U.S. legal system. These options include codifying the FDA’s existing voluntary guidelines, authorizing the national task force to recommend formal rulemaking, or passing a new statute that grants the FDA explicit regulatory power. Ultimately, Grout contends that transitioning to binding law is essential to close regulatory loopholes and protect the long-term efficacy of critical human medications.

Note By: Sarah Shepherd

In this Note, Sarah Shepherd examines the intense legal and regulatory conflicts surrounding greenwashing and environment-related food labeling in the meat and poultry industries. Shepherd details how protein conglomerates like Tyson Foods and JBS USA mislead climate-conscious consumers with unsubstantiated claims like "net-zero emissions". She analyzes the limitations of the current litigation-heavy landscape, tracing how advocacy groups and state regulators have filed consumer protection lawsuits such as EWG v. Tyson and People v. JBS USA. Shepherd argues that courts and a gridlocked Congress are structurally ill-equipped to police these highly technical climate claims. She evaluates the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), pointing out that its August 2024 guidelines merely encourage data substantiation rather than enforcing statutory truthfulness mandates. Ultimately, she advocates that the agency must utilize the Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment process to promulgate binding regulations to help solve the rampant greenwashing of climate-conscious consumers.

Note By: Madelyn Shelton

In this Note, Madelyn Shelton examines the legal and constitutional tension between private property rights and public land access in Kentucky. Shelton details how the American common law tradition historically prioritizes the right to exclude, heavily restricting public recreational access across private landscapes. She analyzes key Supreme Court precedents such as Kaiser Aetna and Cedar Point Nursery, which firmly established the right to exclude as a constitutionally protected core of property ownership. She contrasts state approaches, comparing Wyoming’s hyper-exclusionary criminal trespass policies with Maine’s implied permission framework that permits public access on undeveloped land. She evaluates Kentucky’s legal framework, noting that with ninety-five percent of state land held privately, strict exclusion severely limits outdoor recreation and underutilizes the Commonwealth's signature equine tourism economy. Ultimately, she advocates that Kentucky adopt a limited right to roam on undeveloped land to help solve the severe restriction of public recreational access in private-property-dominated states.

Note By: Chas Lundy

In this Note, Chas Lundy examines the legal conflicts surrounding the definition of a "working year" under the Black Lung Benefits Act. Lundy details how federal courts split over whether disabled coal miners must show a full 365 days of employment or merely 125 working days within a year. He contrasts the Fourth Circuit's traditional two-prong requirement in Armco, Inc. v. Martin with the Sixth Circuit's decision in Shepherd v. Incoal, which accepted 125 working days alone. He argues that requiring a strict 365-day employment period violates statutory canons requiring liberal construction of remedial legislation. Ultimately, he defends the 125-day standard to help solve the unjust denial of benefits to disabled miners and establish horizontal parity across federal courts.

Note By: Zachary Mathis

In this Note, Zachary Mathis examines the legal and constitutional conflicts surrounding the Environmental Protection Agency's legacy coal combustion residuals rule. Mathis details how toxic heavy metals in unlined coal ash impoundments leach into groundwater and disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color. He evaluates potential legal challenges under the arbitrary and capricious standard and the non-delegation doctrine, demonstrating that the EPA took a hard look at leachate hazards and exercised necessary statutory authority. He analyzes the post-Chevron landscape under Loper Bright v. Raimondo, arguing that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's text and purpose support the regulation of legacy impoundments. Ultimately, he defends the EPA's authority and urges industry compliance to help solve the severe environmental and public health hazards facing vulnerable communities.

Note By: Thomas K. Fricker

In this Note, Thomas Fricker examines the intense legal conflicts and federal circuit split surrounding state-law failure-to-warn claims in Roundup litigation. Fricker details how the Third Circuit in Schaffner v. Monsanto found express preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by utilizing the EPA's Preapproval Regulation as the federal comparator. He contrasts this with rulings from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, which applied the parallel requirements test to hold that state common-law warning duties mirror FIFRA’s broader statutory misbranding prohibition. He demonstrates that implied preemption arguments also fail under the "clear evidence" standard because EPA label registrations serve only as prima facie evidence rather than binding rules carrying the force of law. Ultimately, he advocates that the Supreme Court affirm the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits to help solve the unjust preemption of state health warnings and protect workers exposed to glyphosate.

Article By: Rebecca Grippo, Esq.

Note By: Ben Bertram

Note By: Hyeongchan Kim

Note By: Erica Joan Radermacher