public health — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

The Legal Case Against the EPA’s Rescission of the Endangerment Finding

According to EPA statistics, the U.S. vehicle sector produces enough emissions annually that, if it were a separate country, it would be the fifth-largest source of greenhouse gases in the world. [1] For nearly two decades, the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has served as the legal and scientific foundation for regulating these emissions through the Clean Air Act. However, under the second Trump Administration, the agency has recently reversed course, rescinding the Endangerment Finding, directly contradicting its own data, and allowing these emissions to continue unchecked. In light of this stark departure from the scientific consensus and past regulatory practice, this article will evaluate the merits of the legal reasoning the EPA used to rescind the Endangerment Finding. It argues that the EPA’s final rule raises serious questions about consistency with statutory text in the Clean Air Act, divergence from established legal precedent, and disregard for scientific evidence supporting greenhouse gas regulations. Moreover, if the EPA rule is brought to the Supreme Court, the rescission would likely face significant legal challenges, even against the current conservative-majority Court.

A Legal End to New York’s Dirtiest Power Plants?

Given their potential to exacerbate already environmentally-deteriorated conditions, peaker plants have faced substantial criticism from the communities they occupy, with some of these contentions reaching courts. A pair of cases from the early 2000s revolved around the construction of peaker plants in Queens and an area of South Bronx dubbed “Asthma Alley” for its high asthma rates which are eight times higher the national average. However since these cases in 2001, New York State has passed a Green New Deal, and energy storage technologies have become more viable substitutes compared to peakers.

Sophia AhmedJune 20, 2020environmental protection, power plants, public health, Green New Deal

Is Universal Constitutional? Exploring the Implications of the Affordable Care Act Cases

The PPACA established and mandated a standard minimum for care, regulated health coverage practices and entities, and expanded public Medicare and Medicaid programs. The statute further established a legislative precedent that has been resoundingly evoked by the healthcare policy platforms of candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden over a decade later. At the same time, the PPACA has proven remarkably controversial, drawing criticism for its emphatic incentivization of public healthcare at the state level and mandation of coverage at the individual level. As evidenced by the dozens of consequential lawsuits brought before the Roberts Court as a result of the PPACA, the future of universal healthcare remains legally contentious.

fall 2019Alexander LiebeskindNovember 14, 2019public health, Affordable Care Act, universal healthcare, health policyComment

Opioid Liability: The Pitfalls and Potential Gains of Settling

In March 2019, Purdue Pharma reached a $270 million settlement with the State of Oklahoma, amid claims that the pharmaceutical conglomerate knowingly exacerbated the opioid crisis by overinflating the number, magnitude, and duration of opiate prescriptions in pursuit of profit. With fifteen hundred open litigations against Purdue Pharma, including forty-five cases brought by state prosecutors, the case provided critical insight into the strategies adopted by both the state and Purdue.

Alexander LiebeskindNovember 7, 2019opioids, opiate crisis, Purdue Pharma, public healthComment