This Essay scratches the surface of whether important tenets of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) meet the needs of movement lawyers and their clients. It begins by describing what movement lawyering is and its role in advancing social movements. It explores the evolution of the MRPC's justice aspirations, including the more recent cultural competence and anti-bias instructions. While centering the major rules of the MRPC such as duty of loyalty, confidentiality, and communication, the Essay tackles issues such as how do the MRPC accommodate movement lawyers' duties of loyalties to both their clients and their movement, where do the MRPC limit how movement lawyers can push the law, whether the MRPC truly permit movement lawyers to aid their clients in civil disobedience and other law-breaking activity, the limitations on movement lawyers
as press contacts, and how the MRPC guide movement lawyers in advancing their causes in sympathetic jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which carves out a new rulemaking standard for Congress and federal agencies, may be as significant for its articulation of the Major Questions Doctrine (“MQD”) as it is for its treatment of Article III standing and jurisprudential mootness. This Essay examines lower courts’ subsequent treatment of West Virginia v. EPA to add dimension to the inquiry of whether the new MQD has upended the administrative state or if it is merely another arrow in the quiver for judges that prefer a weaker federal government or nondelegation altogether. It also explores whether the opinion, in reaching its MQD merits, redefined the contours of standing and mootness jurisprudence.

The federal circuits have diverging trends in their treatment of Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, the 2004 landmark Supreme Court decision that held that federal agencies do not always need to analyze and disclose the indirect effects of their actions. Explanations for this phenomenon include that courts may be following more universal conservative and progressive trends in their circuits, or perhaps that distinctions turn on the statutes at play, or that particular courts may be more inclined to defer to an agency's interpretation of its regulations rather than Congress' intent in passing a particular law. This Article provides a critical review of the last 20 years of case law and regulatory changes regarding the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and what types of environmental effects federal agencies must disclose and analyze in funding or authorizing major federal actions following Public Citizen.

Federal courts since that decision have navigated precedent seemingly at odds with Congress' intent that federal agencies use all practicable means to "assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings" in considering all reasonably foreseeable effects of major actions. Some courts maintain that federal agencies must analyze and disclose the reasonably foreseeable
indirect effects of the actions they authorize, while others have adopted a broader interpretation of Public Citizen to virtually eliminate indirect effects analysis regardless of foreseeability if there is a break in the causal chain or lack of discretion to address the impacts. This Article helps illuminate why these trends may have emerged, aids litigators in navigating the legal landscape, and provides fodder for NEPA reform. It concludes with recommendations for practitioners who seek to protect the human environment through the enforcement of NEPA's requirement that agencies analyze and disclose a complete account of the reasonably foreseeable effects of their actions.

The climate is changing, and our laws and policies threaten to leave behind vulnerable communities and ecosystems. About half of the people and imperiled plants and animals in the United States are in coastal counties. Coastal communities' ability to cope with the impacts of climate change
will depend on how well local adaptation and resiliency laws and policies work to protect them from rising seas, flooding, saltwater intrusion, intensifying storm activity, and increased heat indices. At the same time, these very same adaptation laws and policies may inadvertently harm vulnerable communities and biodiversity. By 2040 - when today's kindergarteners graduate college - Florida's population will increase by 20% and sea levels will rise an additional foot. With its low elevation and location at the end of Hurricane Alley, Florida is "ground zero" for climate change impacts in the United States. The region's struggles with industrial pollution create additional risk factors. Marginalized communities and imperiled biodiversity are caught amid climate impacts and existing, dangerous infrastructure. Florida is an apt case study for exploring concepts such as managed retreat, social vulnerability, species extinctions, assisted migration, and adaptive management. This Article concludes by making general recommendations for local governments looking to proactively center their resiliency and adaptation efforts on the survival of vulnerable communities and imperiled plants and animals.

The delegation of federal authority over national resources can, in theory, present conservation opportunities, but in fact has entrenched grave pitfalls. This Article explores a significant consequence of federal delegation that has received little serious consideration by courts, agencies, and scholarship: how the Environmental Protection Agency's delegation of federal bedrock environmental laws subverts Congress's intent to empower citizens to enforce these statutes when agencies will not. There are substantial differences between federal and state judicial review, specifically with respect to standing and fee shifting, which effectively limit which kinds of plaintiffs can challenge decisions that impact natural resources. This Article explores the regulatory
framework of delegation, and by focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency's recent delegation of 404 permitting to the state of Florida, provides a case study for how delegation can undermine Congress's intent to provide citizens access to judicial review. The analysis presented here, and the recommended remedies, may aid in identifying and addressing similar injustices in other state regulatory frameworks.

Seventy phosphogypsum stacks are scattered throughout the United States, concentrated in low-wealth and Black, indigenous, and people of color communities. These radioactive waste heaps have a long history of failures, and present a substantial hazard and unreasonable risk of harm. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should swiftly move to regulate these environmental and public health hazards. This Article examines the regulatory failures that have given rise to the proliferation of phosphogypsum stacks in vulnerable communities and sensitive environments in the United States. It argues that EPA has the authority, and with President Joseph Biden's Executive Orders, the mandate to take corrective action to remedy these environmental injustices.