The state of Maine has a complicated and often adversarial legal relationship with the federally recognized Native American (Indian) Tribes in the state.[1] Perhaps the most contentious legal relationship presently pertains to Maine’s authority to regulate water resources on Indian territories and lands (Indian lands).[2] At their core, legal conflicts often involve disputes over power, money, respect, or any combination of these elements.[3] What makes conflicts between states and Native American tribes so complex, and in this particular case volatile, is that the legal issues often involve clashes of all three of these elements.[4] The legal framework for the current water resource dispute traces back to a series of state and federal laws setting aside reservation and trust land for the Tribes in the 1980s and 1990s, collectively known as the Settlement Acts.[5] The Tribes’ lack of bargaining power during these settlements arguably resulted in a jurisdictionally oppressive framework for the protection of tribal natural resources.[6] The most recent legal conflict erupted in February 2015, and juxtaposes Maine’s right to regulate water quality standards (WQS) against the Tribes’ right to fish for sustenance on their lands.[7] The emotional responses ignited by this conflict illuminate why a comprehensive approach to settling the disputes between Maine its Tribes is needed.
Air travel is among the fastest growing modes of transportation in the world.[1] It is not only quick, but also increasingly affordable.[2] Businesspeople, students, and tourists alike can travel by plane across the United States or across the world in a matter of hours. However, this growing popularity in air transportation also means increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from more aircraft in the air. To put the level of GHG emissions from aviation into perspective, “[s]omeone flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year.”[3] Not surprisingly, aircraft emissions are among the fastest growing type of GHG emissions worldwide.[4] Indeed, for most of us, air travel is the largest portion of our carbon footprints.[5] Historically, these emissions have been left to the industry and individual countries to regulate.[6] But that is changing.
Imagine: a diverse group of thirty scholars from MIT gather around a court yard of palm trees to discuss the predicament of mankind in the face of five factors: unsustainable population growth, rapid industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion.[1] In 1969, inspired by United Nations General Secretary, Mr. Thant’s speech on defusing population explosion by forging global partnerships quickly, Dr. Aurelio Peccei organized the MIT conference mentioned above.[2] If global alliances were not forged quickly, Mr. Thant feared the world’s problems would reach “staggering proportions . . . beyond our capacity to control.”[3] This conference of great minds advances a model, known as “Limits to Growth,” which used a computer model to simulate the consequences of the five factors that ultimately limit growth on this planet.[4]
Chicken is the United States’ favorite meat.[1] The increased demand for poultry products has lead to the industrialization of this industry.[2] While meat production has increased immensely, animal wellbeing has significantly decreased. Due to the profitability of raising more animals in a smaller space, stocking densities for broiler chickens have grown significantly.[3] As a result, broiler chickens live in extremely crowded conditions, which suppresses their natural behaviors and restricts their movements.[4] Further, the crammed conditions create high ammonia and heat levels that place undue stress on the animals and the environment.[5] High stress conditions can negatively affect chicken health and lead to an increased risk of Campylobacter and Salmonella, two types of bacteria that cause food poisoning in humans.[6] Therefore, the mass production of poultry increases public health and environmental concerns. In addition, raising chicken in such demeaning and subversive conditions offends many individuals’ moral concerns. Thus, state regulation is necessary to advocate for change in animal welfare practices.
The magnitude of the climate change problem requires a paradigm shift through comprehensive, effective global action. With efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), global leaders have worked to address this problem with a series of international agreements.[1] The 2016 UNFCCC Paris Agreement (Paris Agreement) presents the newest hope for international cooperation to combat climate change.[2]
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) faces heated criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Campaign rallies feature hundreds of signs saying “Free Trade Costs Too Much,” “Flush the TPP,” and simple slashed circles with “TPP” in the center – but at a glance, it’s unclear who the rally is for.[1] President Obama favored ratification, arguing that to ignore the Pacific markets outside American borders allows China (notably absent from the TPP) to write the rules in the region.[2] In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, Congress repeatedly delayed consideration of the TPP – effectively ensuring ratification would wait until a new president takes the Oval Office.[3] Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding the TPP clouds its potential impact on other aspects of Pacific cooperation.
Brittany Maynard took her own life on a cold November morning at the young age of twenty-nine.[1] Brittany had been battling brain cancer and had undergone multiple surgeries to remove her tumor.[2] However, when she learned that the surgeries did not free her from illness, she chose another way to deal with her illness: physician assisted-suicide (PAS).[3] She chose assisted-suicide to avoid medical care that would have ended her quality of life.[4] Additionally, the treatment would have only extended her life for another several months.[5] Brittany did not want to die, but when someone is faced with choosing between two paths to death Brittany asked herself, “Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice?”[6]
Society is beginning to seriously consider legal prostitution by turning to European models as guidance for policy issues.[1] Yet forsaking the financial incentives prostitution creates laws that are blind to the reality of sex worker. The gap between the reality of prostitution and the law becomes more troubling in rural areas, especially Appalachia, where a failure to account for local conditions exists because legislators are too far removed to know what those conditions are.[2]
On February 9, 2015, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), under the Department of the Treasury, proposed a major amendment to regulations governing the use of American viticultural area (AVA) names as appellations of origin on wine labels.[1] AVAs serve as “delimited grape-growing region[s] having distinguishing features[,] . . . a name[,] and a delineated boundary.”[2] They are used on wine labels to describe unique features relating to wine origin and production.[3]
In accepting the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2015 EPSYS, Caitlyn Jenner described her personal transition and experience learning about transgender issues as “eye-opening, inspiring [and] frightening.”[1] In her television series, I Am Cait, Jenner strives to educate the public about transgender problems.[2] Jenner is one of many who have taken on this Herculean feat to bring light to the discrimination transgender people face.[3]
Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.
