Clean Air Act Advocacy Midterm

There has been quite the gap in my posts, and that is because life really got away from me. Class has continued on, seemingly at warp speed. We got back from Spring Break, everyone turned in their midterms, and we didn’t finish grading them until yesterday. I had quite a few deadlines of my own the week after Spring Break, so it took me a week before I could start the grading process, but once I got going, it was smooth sailing.

For the Midterm, students used the same facts from the methyl bromide case study, but from a different perspective. This time, an organization, creatively named CleanAIR, approaches them (pretend attorneys) with the organization’s concerns about the ozone-depleting potential of methyl bromide. They ask if there is anything they can do to get regulations for the substance.

With CleanAIR ringing in their ears, they debated the nuances of the Clean Air Act, the elusive regulatory process, and the complexities of ozone depletion. The students were tasked not only with identifying the issues but also developing actionable strategies that would stand up in court and, more importantly, have a real impact on the environment.

Seeing the students grapple with these real-world legal implications was both exhilarating and fulfilling. As they navigated the tangled web of law, policy, and science, I couldn't help but feel a surge of pride at the wonderful creativity and argument crafting.

The students received the scientific facts from the case study, and then we created a file of resources for them to use to answer the organization’s inquiry. We provided them sections of Title VI of the CAA, which concerns the regulation of ozone-depleting substances, and directed them to the cases we had read so far that they would need to rely on. Overall, we supplied them with the facts, the instructions, a rubric, the statutory text, and the exact cases we wanted them to use.

With all that information in hand, students embarked on an intellectual treasure hunt to uncover the organization’s options, ultimately leading them to two main paths: a citizen suit against the EPA or a petition for rulemaking. After a spirited debate, they meticulously crafted and presented their recommendations.

However, the crux of the matter hinged on whether the EPA's determination of methyl bromide as an ozone-depleting substance was a discretionary act. The students needed to comprehend that a citizen suit can proceed only if the EPA's action (or inaction) is classified as non-discretionary. While most students grasped that non-discretionary action was crucial, they collectively stumbled when defining the listing of methyl bromide as a statutory duty. Despite missing some legal nuances and key phrases, their reasoning remained strong—a bright light guiding them through challenging waters.

As the exercise approached its conclusion, the students were tasked with considering the next steps if CleanAIR's wishes were granted—specifically, when rulemaking came into play. Unfortunately, some students lost their way, failing to outline the rulemaking process even though it was clearly detailed in their instructions and rubric. For those who ventured into alternative scenarios—what would happen if they lost the case or if their petition was denied—I was particularly impressed. A critical element of this exercise was to think beyond the immediate outcome, and those who did received well-deserved bonus points. In the end, their engagement and exploration underscored their hard work and understanding of environmental law.

Overall, I was really impressed with the vast improvement in the quality of the students' analysis from the common law case memo. I think a few factors are responsible for the change. The common law memo was their first stab at legal writing, so there was definitely a learning curve as they figured it out. We provided much more detailed instructions for the midterm, along with a comprehensive rubric and all the useful material conveniently in one place.

Hopefully, students learned from the feedback on their last assignment. When they requested it, we extended the deadline, allowing them to utilize Spring Break to refine their papers. This experience taught me more about what the students need and how I can facilitate better learning outcomes.

Because I devised this assignment before we began the unit, I was able to emphasize certain points during my teaching and provide them with key takeaways crucial to their understanding of the task. I believe the students gained a lot from this; since this assignment, they have been bringing up citizen suits or petitions during our discussions of other material. It’s delightful to see their analytical journeys blossom!