Supreme Court 2021 Term Roundup: Environmental Law and the States

Tuesday, July 19
12:30 - 1:45 ET
CLE Credit

Image of the U.S. Supreme Court building within a U.S. map showing state borders.
  • Tuesday, July 19, 2022
  • 12:30pm–1:45pm ET
  • Online Event

Join appel­late advo­cates and state Solic­i­tors Gen­er­al on Tues­day, July 19 from 12:30pm — 1:45pm ET for a con­ver­sa­tion about the term’s cas­es and the impact that those cas­es could have on states and envi­ron­men­tal law. This pro­gram is co-host­ed by the State Ener­gy & Envi­ron­men­tal Impact Cen­ter and the State and Local Legal Center.

Reg­is­tra­tion is required. A con­fir­ma­tion email will include a link to join the webi­nar. We encour­age you to sub­mit ques­tions in advance to tiernaur.​[email protected]​nyu.​edu. We will also take ques­tions dur­ing the webi­nar using the Q&A feature. 


Benjamin Gutman

Ben­jamin Gutman

Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al, Ore­gon Attor­ney General

Mithun Mansinghani

Mithun Mans­ing­hani

Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al, Okla­homa Attor­ney General

Lindsay See

Lind­say See

Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al, West Vir­ginia Attor­ney General

Steven Wu

Steven Wu

Chief of Appeals, Man­hat­tan Dis­trict Attor­ney’s Office; For­mer Deputy Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al, New York Attor­ney General

Kirti Datla

Kir­ti Datla


Direc­tor of Strate­gic Legal Advo­ca­cy, Earthjustice

Written Materials

This event is seek­ing approval for New York State CLE cred­it. If approved, it will be appro­pri­ate for both expe­ri­enced and new­ly admit­ted attorneys. 

Supreme Court Cases

2021 Term — Argued or Decided

  • Mis­sis­sip­pi v. Ten­nessee (decid­ed 11/22/21)
    • Hold­ing: The waters of the Mid­dle Clai­borne Aquifer are sub­ject to the judi­cial rem­e­dy of equi­table appor­tion­ment; Mississippi’s com­plaint is dis­missed with­out leave to amend.
  • New York State Rifle & Pos­til Assn., Inc. v. Bru­en (decid­ed 6/23/22)
    • Issue(s): Whether the state of New York’s denial of peti­tion­ers’ appli­ca­tions for con­cealed-car­ry licens­es for self-defense vio­lat­ed the Sec­ond Amendment.
  • U.S. v. Vael­lo Madero (decid­ed 4/21/22)
    • Hold­ing: The Con­sti­tu­tion does not require Con­gress to extend Sup­ple­men­tal Secu­ri­ty Income ben­e­fits to res­i­dents of Puer­to Rico.
  • Biden v. Mis­souri (decid­ed 1/13/22)
    • Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225 requires the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty to con­tin­ue imple­ment­ing the Migrant Pro­tec­tion Pro­to­cols, a for­mer pol­i­cy under which cer­tain nonci­t­i­zens arriv­ing at the south­west bor­der were returned to Mex­i­co dur­ing their immi­gra­tion pro­ceed­ings; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir­cuit erred by con­clud­ing that the sec­re­tary of home­land security’s new deci­sion ter­mi­nat­ing MPP had no legal effect.
  • Ari­zona v. San Fran­cis­co, CA (dis­missed 6/15/22)
    • Issue(s): (1) Whether states with inter­ests should be per­mit­ted to inter­vene to defend a rule when the Unit­ed States ceas­es to defend.
  • West Vir­ginia v. EPA (decid­ed 6/30/22)
    • Issue(s): Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary pro­vi­sion of the Clean Air Act, Con­gress con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly autho­rized the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency to issue sig­nif­i­cant rules — includ­ing those capa­ble of reshap­ing the nation’s elec­tric­i­ty grids and uni­lat­er­al­ly decar­boniz­ing vir­tu­al­ly any sec­tor of the econ­o­my — with­out any lim­its on what the agency can require so long as it con­sid­ers cost, non­air impacts and ener­gy requirements.
  • Tor­res v. Texas Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safe­ty (decid­ed 6/29/22)
    • Issue(s): Whether Con­gress has the pow­er to autho­rize suits against non­con­sent­ing states pur­suant to its con­sti­tu­tion­al war powers.
  • Viking Riv­er Cruis­es, Inc. (decid­ed 6/15/22)
  • Okla­homa v. Cas­tro-Huer­ta (decid­ed 6/29/22)
    • Issue(s): Whether a state has author­i­ty to pros­e­cute non-Indi­ans who com­mit crimes against Indi­ans in Indi­an country.

2022 Term — Not yet set for argument

  • Sack­ett v. EPA
    • Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir­cuit set forth the prop­er test for deter­min­ing whether wet­lands are waters of the Unit­ed States” under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
  • Nation­al Pork Pro­duc­ers Coun­cil v. Ross
    • Issue(s): (1) Whether alle­ga­tions that a state law has dra­mat­ic eco­nom­ic effects large­ly out­side of the state and requires per­va­sive changes to an inte­grat­ed nation­wide indus­try state a vio­la­tion of the dor­mant com­merce clause, or whether the extrater­ri­to­ri­al­i­ty prin­ci­ple described in the Supreme Court’s deci­sions is now a dead let­ter; and (2) whether such alle­ga­tions, con­cern­ing a law that is based sole­ly on pref­er­ences regard­ing out-of-state hous­ing of farm ani­mals, state a claim under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.