Could not load widget with the id 2575.

Don’t Drop the Bomb: The Argument for a Stringent Approach to Nuclear Plant Liability Transfers

Angela Sicker

Governmental interest in cleaning up a polluted site is not a new topic. Congress, in implementing statutes like the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), “makes the polluter pay” while encouraging quick and cost-effective cleanups.[1] There are many benefits to remediating a contaminated site.[2] The redevelopment of brownfield sites provides a great example. Studies show that brownfield remediation can lead to increases in tax revenue for local governments due to the increase in property value near cleanup sites.[3] Environmental liability transfers (ELCs) provide a mechanism for private industries to clean up hundreds of contaminated sites and have done so for the past two decades.[4] An environmental liability transfer is “a transaction in which certain environmental liabilities and the risks of certain contingent environmental liabilities are transferred from one party to another.”[5]

Permitting CAFOS: Challenges the CAFO Permitting Scheme Will Face in Light of Climate Change

Amy Stevens

What impact does our food have on water? As the United States’ food and agriculture systems progress, farmers are shifting towards factory farming.[1] These factory farms, officially labeled Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), often pollute water with nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and sediments.[2] Nutrient pollution is harmful to local ecosystems.[3] Nutrients are necessary for plant and animal growth, but in high concentrations, they can have the opposite effect.[4] Nitrogen and phosphorus are the most notorious nutrients, and they are found in animal waste.[5] But waste is not always manure. Poultry CAFO waste is called poultry litter, and it is a mix of manure, bedding, feathers, and waste feed.[6] Excess nutrient levels in streams can cause algae blooms, reducing the dissolved oxygen in the water (which fish need to survive), leading to less wildlife and more dead zones.[7] Nitrogen can also cause human health problems if it gets into drinking water, including several types of cancer[8] and blue baby syndrome (a deadly condition where blood cannot effectively transport oxygen through the body causing blue around the hands, mouth, and feet).[9]

Ocean Acidification and the Law: Protecting Natural Resources from the Bottom Up

Jaime Neary

The interactions between Earth’s oceans and land bodies make up one of the oldest natural cycles on the planet.[1] Unfortunately, events on land have had a disproportionately negative effect on the oceans since the evolution of humans.[2] One example that demonstrates this interaction is ocean acidification. Over the last 200 years alone, there has been a 30% increase in ocean acidity.[3] This is the greatest increase in acidity since the Early Eocene Epoch,[4] a time best known for high carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, no ice, and surface temperatures 9–14°C higher than today.[5]

A Raw New Deal: Stripping Down and Restructuring the Immigrant Investor Program Under the Trump Administration

Allyson Moore

United States residency is for sale. As a Hail Mary attempt to jumpstart the U.S. economy, legislators set their sights on a combination of controversial immigration law and classic business tactics. Ultimately, Congress created an investment immigration program.[1] Specifically, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program developed from an interest in promoting the immigration of capital, not just people, in the hopes of expanding the U.S. job market.[2] This program allows investors to pay their way into the country if their investment links to a preapproved project that creates at least ten U.S. jobs.[3]

Out of Charge: The Barriers to Energy Storage New England Electricity Restructuring Created and How to Remove Them

Ian Oxenham

Unchecked climate change will have disastrous consequences for humanity and the global environment.[1] The world’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pathway will likely lead to 4˚C of global warming.[2] That level of warming could make over half of all living species extinct, sink hundreds of coastal cities beneath the ocean, render parts of the Earth virtually uninhabitable, and kill billions of people.[3] Curbing climate change requires substantial reductions in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels.[4]

Remember What His Frightened Heart Looks Like: An International Comparison of the Legal and Social Attitudes Towards Violent Punishment in the Home

Sasha Gainen-Truslow

Janusz Korczak, a Polish-Jewish turn-of-the-century children’s rights advocate and educator, gave a famous lecture on violent punishment:

 

Korczak entered with a small boy clutching his hand. Without a word he took the boy’s shirt off, placed him behind a fluoroscope and turned off the overhead light. Everyone could now see the boy’s heart beating rapidly on the screen. “Don’t ever forget this sight,” Korczak told his audience. “Before you raise a hand to a child, before you administer any kind of punishment, remember what his frightened heart looks like.”[1]

Feminist Revenge: Seeking Justice for Victims of Nonconsensual Pornography Through “Revenge Porn” Reform

Katherine Gabriel

The United States legal system fails to adequately provide redress for victims of nonconsensual pornography, also known as “revenge porn.” Prior to 2013, the judicial system ignored the growing presence of nonconsensual pornography.[1] There were no laws specifically in place to either deter or punish individuals who distributed nonconsensual, sexually explicit material.[2] There was little—if any—justice available for victims of revenge porn.

America’s Big League National Monuments

Noah Greenstein

In 1906, Congress passed the infamous National Monument Act (more commonly known as the Antiquities Act), which grants the President broad, discretionary authority to designate national monuments.[1] Over the last 100 years, 16 Presidents from both parties have used this Act to designate 157 national monuments across the United States.[2] For example, on September 18, 1996, President Bill Clinton—standing on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon—established Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Southeastern Utah.[3] At 1.7 million acres, Grand Staircase is the largest national monument in the continental United States.[4] Many were outraged over the monument designation.[5] Senator Orin Hatch, Republican of Utah, exclaimed, that “[i]n all my 20 years in the U.S. Senate, I have never seen a clearer example of the arrogance of federal power.”[6] Another Republican Senator compared the designation to Pearl Harbor.[7] Just over ten years later, former President Barack Obama designated 1.35 million acres in Utah, bordering Grand-Staircase, as Bears Ears National Monument.[8] Republican Representative Jason Chafetz immediately criticized the decision, calling the monument “a slap in the face to the people of Utah.”[9] The outrage over these monument designations is still brewing, and in December President Donald J. Trump will head to Utah to announce his plans to reduce the size of these national monuments.[10] The extent to which President Trump will reduce these monuments is unknown, but Utah state officials are pushing for a 90% reduction.[11]

Morality Bites: Moral Rights Under VARA and the Battle between Wall Street’s “Fearless Girl” and “Charging Bull”

Amie Johnson

A girl stands boldly—fearlessly—in front of Wall Street’s famous “Charging Bull.”[1] On the eve of International Women’s Day, State Street Global Advisors commissioned Kristen Visbal’s installment of the diminutive, yet defiant, statue of a girl facing down a bull.[2] State Street Global Advisors intended the “Fearless Girl” to be a celebration of the power of women leaders.[3] However, Arturo Di Modica—the “Charging Bull” sculptor—is arguing that the juxtaposition of the two statues subverts the message of his statue, casting the bull as a villain.[4] He contends that the “Fearless Girl” infringes upon his moral rights.[5]

Score: Structured Cannabis Organizational Reform Evaluation

George Clause

Marijuana in the United States is in a precarious legal position.[1] By January 2018, adults 21 years or older will be able to consume the plant legally and recreationally in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada (as well as Alaska, Massachusetts and Maine), yet cross the border into Idaho or Utah and be prosecuted for the same conduct.2 All the while the plant remains unequivocally illegal at the federal level.[2] Today, the disconnect between federal and state marijuana laws exists primarily because the plant has been politically demonized.[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.

Learn more about the submissions process >