Editors' Summary: In the first of two Articles, Professor Craig N. Oren examines the recent "blockbuster" opinion in American Trucking Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, in which a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded EPA's air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. The author begins with a discussion of the statutory and regulatory framework and describes the court's holding.

Editors' Summary: In this Article, the authors examine whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent "federalism trilogy"—Alden v. Maine, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, and Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank—restrict the ability of Congress to regulate state compliance with federal environmental statutes. The authors begin with a review of the facts and holdings of the cases.

Editors' Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and its implications for takings challenges, are comprehensively discussed in this Article. The author describes the claims that were before the Court, and why several earlier Court rulings were implicated. The Article then reviews the Court's holdings on three major issues, and explores the extent to which the Court provided definitive guidance regarding the scope and nature of the regulatory taking doctrine.

Editors' Summary: In this Dialogue, counsel for Alcan Aluminum Corporation argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel has dramatic implications for CERCLA, particularly with regard to the imposition of liability for actions that occurred well before the statute was enacted. The Dialogue asserts that the retroactive impact of CERCLA upon "third-party generators"—those that arranged for the disposal of their wastes at regulated facilities—is inconsistent with both the plurality and dissenting opinions in Eastern Enterprises.

Editors' Summary: EPA's audit policy provides incentives for companies to develop environmental audit and compliance management systems to detect, disclose, and correct violations. When companies voluntarily discover environmental violations and disclose them to EPA, the Agency will waive or substantially reduce the applicable penalties. As part of EPA's proposal to revise this policy, the Agency conducted a survey to evaluate the policy's effectiveness.

Editors' Summary: Florida's APA was significantly revised in 1996 and 1999 to impose stringent qualifications on agency authority to promulgate regulations. Many of the amendments echo proposed reforms to the federal APA and the Florida "model" has also been said to be a useful precedent for "reform" of other states' APAs. In this Article, Prof. Jim Rossi analyzes the amendments and describes their ramifications as far-reaching and adverse.

Editors' Summary: Are private-property rights and the growing trend toward "smart growth" laws and programs on a collision course? This Article discusses the extent to which growth management measures imposed by state and local governments may conflict with the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It explores the frequent use of development moratoria, many of which are purportedly imposed to protect natural resources and environmental quality, and provides criteria utilized by courts in determining whether a taking has occurred.

Editors' Summary: In Harmon Industries, Inc. v. Browner, the Eighth Circuit held that once a state with an authorized RCRA program has taken an enforcement action against a defendant, EPA may not maintain a separate enforcement action based on the same set of facts, a practice commonly referred to as "overfiling." The Eighth Circuit held that the Agency's practice of overfiling violated both the language of RCRA and the doctrine of res judicata.

Editors' Summary: In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the U.S. Supreme Court held that regulations that deprive a landowner of economically beneficial use of land are compensable under the Fifth Amendment unless the regulation in question either prevents a nuisance or is part of a state's "back-ground principles" of property law. While nuisance law is fairly well understood, the second exception to the rule of compensation is not.

Editors' Summary: The law surrounding medical monitoring claims is relatively new and unsettled, but the uncertainty of the law has not stopped tort litigants from increasingly asserting such claims when seeking recovery for toxic exposure. This Article analyzes medical monitoring claims and details the difficult issues that courts are struggling with as they determine the viability of such claims. The Article first distinguishes a claim for medical monitoring from similar claims for enhanced risk of harm or fear of developing an injury or disease.