Category: News

Analyzing Legal Contradictions Between Michigan’s Energy Laws and the Natural Resource Act: Challenges and Policy Tips
By Haleigh Smith

 Michigan’s energy and environmental laws have experienced significant evolution in recent years, showing a strong effort to move toward cleaner, renewable energy. The Public Acts 235, 233, and 229 in 2023 exemplify this shift, establishing ambitious standards for clean energy, renewable project siting, and energy waste reduction.[1] Simultaneously, older laws like the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) and the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act still play an important role in protecting the environment and managing land use.[2] However, the intersection of these new legislative initiatives with pre-existing environmental statutes presents complex legal contradictions that make it harder to put policies into action.

This post looks at these conflicts, what they might mean for Michigan’s environmental and energy goals, and suggests ways to fix these issues so laws can work better together and support sustainable growth.

Overview of Recent Energy Legislation in Michigan
The legislative reforms introduced in 2023 mark a pivotal shift in Michigan’s energy policy framework. Public Act 235 (PA 235) mandates a transition to 100% clean energy by 2040, requiring electric providers to submit comprehensive Clean Energy Plans starting no later than 2028, with guidelines to be established by 2026.[3] This act highlights Michigan’s commitment to decarbonization and aligns with broader national trends toward renewable energy adoption.

Complementing this, Public Act 233 (PA 233) addresses renewable energy project siting and permitting. It grants the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) authority to approve large-scale renewable facilities, such as wind and solar farms, while delineating the role of local governments in land-use restrictions.[4] This act seeks to streamline project development, reduce permitting delays, and centralize authority to facilitate renewable infrastructure deployment. Public Act 229 (PA 229) revises energy waste reduction targets and mandates the filing of energy optimization plans by utilities, emphasizing efficiency and conservation.[5] These laws collectively aim to bolster Michigan’s renewable capacity, improve energy efficiency, and ensure a coordinated approach to sustainable energy development.

Pre-existing Environmental Frameworks
Alongside legislative efforts, Michigan’s environmental statutes, in particular MEPA and the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, establish protections for natural resources and land use regulation.[6] The MEPA emphasizes the prevention of environmental degradation, requiring agencies and individuals to avoid unnecessary harm to Michigan’s ecosystems.[7] MEPA encourages environmentally conscious development and can serve as a safeguard against large-scale projects that could compromise ecological integrity.

The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act grants local governments authority to regulate land use, including the siting of energy projects.[8] This empowers local zoning boards to impose restrictions or guidelines to shape project development, often with considerations for community welfare, property values, and environmental impact. Complementing this, Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standards promote renewable generation and distributed energy systems, aligning with the state’s sustainability objectives.[9] These statutes collectively provide a comprehensive legal framework aimed at balancing energy development with environmental conservation.

Emerging Contradictions and Challenges
The intersection of the new energy laws with existing environmental statutes reveals multiple areas of potential legal conflict. These contradictions stem from overlapping jurisdictions, differing priorities, and statutory ambiguities. A central issue is authority and jurisdictional conflicts: Public Act 233’s centralization of siting authority within the MPSC may conflict with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act’s delegation of land use regulation to local governments. While PA 233 seeks to streamline renewable project approvals, it risks overriding local zoning restrictions that aim to protect environmental quality or community interests.[10] Such preemption could lead to legal disputes, especially if local restrictions are grounded in environmental concerns or land conservation policies. Similarly, the expedited siting and permitting provisions in PA 233 and PA 295 may conflict with MEPA’s requirement to assess environmental impact comprehensively.[11] Fast-tracking projects without rigorous environmental review could undermine MEPA’s protections, raising questions about the legal hierarchy and procedural compliance.

Environmental Safeguards versus project development also present a challenge. MEPA’s emphasis on preventing unnecessary environmental harm may be at odds with the aggressive timeline and project approval mandates of the new energy laws.[12] For example, large-scale wind or solar projects designated as “statewide significance” could threaten habitats, water resources, or land stability if not carefully evaluated.[13] Projects might bypass or minimize the statutory requirement for environmental assessments under MEPA. Land Use and local restrictions further complicate the legal landscape. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act’s provisions allow local governments to impose restrictions on energy projects.[14] However, PA 233 limits these restrictions and authorizes the MPSC to override local decisions if they exceed permissible limits.[15] This tension creates a legal ambiguity: should local land use policies prioritize environmental and community interests, or should they yield to statewide renewable development goals? The inconsistency could lead to litigation, delays, and project cancellations.

Implications for Policy and Implementation
The contradictions between Michigan’s energy legislation and environmental statutes threaten to undermine the state’s sustainability objectives. Legal conflicts may cause project delays, increase costs, or even result in legal challenges that halt development. Moreover, inconsistencies erode public trust and stakeholder confidence, essential for successful energy transition.[16]

Without clear legal coherence, energy projects may proceed without adequate environmental safeguards, leading to ecological degradation, loss of biodiversity, and community opposition. Conversely, overly restrictive local regulations could impede renewable infrastructure deployment, hampering Michigan’s clean energy commitments.[17] Therefore, achieving legal coherence requires resolving these contradictions through deliberate policy reforms, clear statutory hierarchies, and integrated planning processes.

Policy Recommendations for Enhancing Legal Coherence
To address these challenges, Michigan policymakers should pursue a versatile approach emphasizing clarity, consistency, and stakeholder engagement. Legislators should explicitly delineate the hierarchy of statutes governing energy development and environmental protection. Clarifying whether energy laws supersede local land use restrictions or require environmental assessments before project approval can reduce legal ambiguities. A statutory provision that mandates compliance with MEPA during energy project permitting, regardless of centralized or local authority, would reinforce environmental safeguards.[18]

Michigan should develop a unified planning framework that mandates environmental impact assessments (EIAs) as an integral part of the renewable project approval process. This could involve establishing a dedicated inter-agency task force or environmental review board that evaluates project proposals within the context of land use, ecological conservation, and community welfare, ensuring that energy development aligns with environmental statutes.[19] Enhancing local-state collaboration is equally important; while streamlining project approval is desirable, local governments possess valuable knowledge about their ecosystems and land use priorities. Policies should foster collaborative decision-making, incorporating local environmental concerns into statewide planning. This might include formal consultation requirements or joint review procedures that respect local zoning while aligning with statewide renewable goals.[20]

Clarifying and expanding the role of MEPA is also necessary; Michigan should consider updating MEPA to explicitly accommodate energy development projects, delineating procedures for environmental review of renewable energy facilities. Incorporating specific guidelines for wind, solar, and energy storage projects can streamline assessments and prevent conflicts with rapid project timelines.[21] Engaging communities, environmental organizations, and Indigenous groups in planning processes can ensure that energy projects respect ecological and social considerations. Establishing public comment periods, stakeholder advisory committees, and dispute resolution mechanisms can foster transparency and consensus.[22]

Finally, developing technical and financial incentives for environmentally compatible developments—such as habitat preservation, buffer zones, or technological innovations­—can align project objectives with environmental statutes. These measures can encourage developers to prioritize ecological considerations within the legal framework.[23]

Conclusion
Michigan stands at a critical contingency in its pursuit of a sustainable energy future. The recent legislative reforms demonstrate commitment but also expose underlying contradictions with established environmental statutes. Addressing these conflicts requires deliberate policy reforms emphasizing legal clarity, integrated planning, and stakeholder participation.[24] By establishing a coherent legal framework that balances energy development with environmental conservation, Michigan can foster a resilient, equitable, and sustainable energy system. Such coherence will not only facilitate the effective implementation of renewable energy projects but also uphold the state’s commitment to protecting its natural resources for future generations.

[1] Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 460.1051, 460.1221, 460.1071 (2023).

[2] See Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.101 (1994).; see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3102 (2006).

[3] Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1101 (2023).

[4] Id.§ 460.1222.

[5] Id.§ 460.1071.

[6] See Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.101 (1994).; see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3102-125.3702 (2006).

[7] Id.

[8] Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3507 (2006).

[9] Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1001 (2008).

[10] Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1223 (2023).

[11] Id.; Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1002 (2008).

[12] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.101 (1994).

[13] Id.

[14] Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3507 (2006).

[15] Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 460.1080, 460.1223, 460.1055 (2023).

[16] Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Energy Legislation and Policy Workgroups (2023).

[17] Mich. Dep’t of Env’t, Great Lakes & Energy, Environmental Regulations and Guidelines (2023).

[18] See Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.101 (1994); see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1010 (2008).

[19] Mich. Dep’t of Envt’l, Great Lakes & Energy, Environmental Regulations and Guidelines (2023).

[20] Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3132 (2006).

[21] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.101 (1994).; Mich. Dep’t of Env’t, Great Lakes & Energy, Environmental Regulations and Guidelines (2023).

[22]  Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Energy Legislation and Policy Workgroups (2023).

[23] Mich. Comp. Laws § 460.1009 (2008).; Mich. Dep’t of Env’t, supra note 15.

[24] Id.; Mich. Comp. Laws §§§ 460.1051, 460.1221, 460.1071 (2023).

Food Fight: Can State Bans on Cultivated Meat Survive Federal Preemption?
By Anthony Corradi

            Modern industrial agriculture’s negative impacts on animal welfare, public health, and the environment are some of the rare social issues that boast broad support across political and demographic divides.[1] In a March 2023 survey, 81% of Americans reported they were concerned with the effect of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFOs,” or “factory farms”) on public health.[2] Similarly, 79% and 76% of Americans, respectively, expressed concerns about factory farms’ consequences for animal welfare and the environment.[3] These concerns ran so deep that 74% of Americans—including 83% of those who raised animals themselves—supported a ban on new factory farms.[4] Because an estimated 99% of all US farmed land animals are currently being raised in factory farms, these numbers suggest that hundreds of millions of Americans might welcome an alternative source of meat.[5]

In theory, cultivated meat (also known as cultured meat, clean meat, and cell-based meat)[6] seems uniquely capable of serving this nascent market. Unlike current imitation products like those from Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods, cultivated meat is identical to conventional meat at the cellular level.[7] Though conceptualized as long ago as the 1800’s, the recent discovery and isolation of stem cells first made cultivated meat possible.[8] Producing cultivated meat requires multiplying stem cells from a living animal in-vitro, differentiating those stem cells into either muscle or fat cells, then using tissue engineering techniques to assemble the muscle and fat cells into a tissue closely resembling conventional meat.[9] Though technological barriers remain before cultivated meat is competitive with the cost of conventional meat, significant public and private investments have substantially lowered prices thus far.[10]

In 2019, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) formalized the current regulatory structure governing most cultivated meat production. FDA regulates the cell development stage; then authority passes to FSIS beginning with the food processing stage.[11] Two companies, GOOD Meat and UPSIDE Foods, were the first to receive both a premarket consultation clearance from FDA and a grant of inspection from FSIS.[12] Following this approval, both companies brought their products to the market—albeit in a very limited capacity—in July 2023.[13]

Despite federal regulatory approval and potential to mimic conventional meat without the need for deeply unpopular factory farming, cultivated meat has since faced a new hurdle: statewide bans. Currently, five states (Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Montana, and Nebraska) have passed permanent bans on cultivated meat, while two more (Texas and Indiana) enacted two-year bans.[14] The specific conduct barred by these laws varies slightly, but, generally, they prohibit some combination of manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling any cultivated meat product within the state.[15]

A promising legal challenge to cultivated meat bans stems from the federal preemption doctrine. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that “the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Express preemption is the most straightforward conflict between state and federal law, occurring when Congress expressly declares its intent to preempt state law.[16] With respect to cultured poultry, FSIS states that cell-cultured poultry food products are poultry food products as defined in 9 C.F.R. 381.1(b) (the Poultry Products Inspection Regulations), and “are, therefore, subject to the same statutory requirements, regulations, and FSIS oversight authority as . . . poultry food products derived from slaughter.[17] The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) expressly preempts state law by proclaiming that no state may impose requirements with respect to “premises, facilities, operations . . . or ingredients . . .  in addition to, or different than, those made under this chapter.”[18] Thus, in an express preemption challenge, the question courts will have to answer is whether these state bans are imposing additional or different requirements on “premises, facilities, operations, . . . or ingredients.” For example, Florida’s law bans any “meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells.”[19] But since FSIS and the PPIA treat cultivated poultry and conventional poultry equivalently, Florida’s law—by distinguishing between methods of production—is arguably an impermissible regulation on poultry operations or ingredients. Although state bans vary and each will require a slightly different analysis, express preemption challenges seem broadly promising.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court has also recognized implied preemption, where congressional intent to preempt state law is implicit in a law’s structure and purpose. Implied preemption can take multiple forms, but, of relevance here, “obstacle preemption” arises when a state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”[20] As to the PPIA’s purpose, Congress declared that consolidating the nationwide regulation of poultry products under the Secretary of Agriculture was appropriate “to prevent and eliminate burdens upon [interstate] commerce, to effectively regulate such commerce, and to protect the health and welfare of consumers.”[21] By banning a product that federal regulations treat as indistinguishable from a non-banned product, these state laws directly frustrate Congress’s stated objectives of effectively regulating and reducing the burden on interstate commerce.

To be sure, cultivated meat is not a guaranteed success even without these bans. The technology might prove too difficult to scale. The cost may never be competitive with conventional meat. Consumers may reject it despite widespread concerns with factory farming. But courts should not allow states to protect their entrenched industries or score political points by removing a federally regulated product’s access to the national market.

[1] 2023 Industrial Animal Agriculture Opinion Survey, Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2–4 (2024), https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/2023_industrial_ag_survey_results_report_052523_1.pdf.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 3.

[5] Jacy Reese Anthis, US Factory Farming Estimates, Sentience Inst., https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates (last updated Nov. 2, 2024).

[6] Mark J. Post et al., The Status of Cultured Meat and Scientific Challenges, New Harvest OpenCellAg Repository, 5 (2020), https://zenodo.org/records/7682919/files/Post_2020Challenges_Postprint.pdf.

[7] Id. at 3.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 3–4.

[10] Lisa S. Benson & Joel L. Greene, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47697, Cell-Cultivated Meat: An Overview 1, 4–6 (2023).

[11] Id. at 8–10.

[12] Id. at 10–11.

[13] Id. at 11.

[14] Madyson Fitzgerald, Texas Becomes Seventh State to Ban Lab-Grown Meat, Stateline (June 30, 2025), https://stateline.org/2025/06/30/texas-becomes-seventh-state-to-ban-lab-grown-meat/.

[15] Compare Fla. Stat. § 500.452 (2024) (banning the manufacturing, sale, offering for sale, or distributing of cultivated meat), with Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 431.02105 (West 2025) (prohibiting the offering for sale or sale of cultivated meat).

[16] Bryan L. Adkins et al., Cong. Rsch. Serv., R45825, Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer 2 (2023).

[17] U.S. Dep’t of Agric., FSIS Directive 7800.1, FSIS Responsibilities in Establishments Producing Cell-Cultured Meat & Poultry Food Products 2 (June 21, 2023).

[18] 21 U.S.C. § 467e (2018); see also Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 602 (2018) (declaring the same purposes for federal regulatory control over non-poultry meat).

[19] Fla. Stat. §§ 500.03, 500.452 (2024).

[20] Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).

[21] 21 U.S.C. § 451 (2018).

Slithering Toward Trouble: A Call for Regulatory Action for Florida’s Snake Plants
By Katherine Cantor

            Florida faces an ongoing battle against invasive species. Although there are some state, county, and city-level regulations designed to curb their spread, the current law is insufficient. One aggressive invader, snake plant, continues to slip through the regulatory cracks. Despite their rapid growth and resilience, snake plants remain largely unregulated. To effectively protect Florida’s native ecosystems, action is needed: cities, counties, and the state must strengthen regulations to address invasive species like snake plants before they become even more unmanageable.

What are Snake Plants?
            Snake plants, primarily the species Sansevieria trifasciata and Sansevieria hyacinthoides, are invasive plants in Florida. Snake plants fit Florida’s definition of invasive plants as “a naturalized plant that disrupts naturally occurring native plant communities.”[1] Invasive species are harmful to native species and the ecosystem.[2] Sansevieria trifasciata is recognized as an invasive species in Florida by many entities, but not by the laws.[3]

Snake plant was first introduced to Florida for its fiber.[4] Quickly, however, the use of snake plant turned ornamental, because “Sansevieria is a very attractive and durable foliage plant.”[5] Today, it would be difficult to visit South Florida without seeing some, either in pots, as landscaping, or very often, completing taking over other foliage. Snake plant grows via underground rhizomes—horizontal roots—that make removal very difficult: “[t]he rhizomes are fragile and break easily when pulled by the leaves.  Resprouting is likely if any part of the plant remains . . . .”[6] Unfortunately, snake plant is also very well suited to the climate of South Florida.[7] Thus, it grows easily, spreads easily, outcompetes, smothers, and literally chokes native plants, and is extremely difficult to control or remove.[8]

Florida’s Invasive Species Laws
            Snake plants are harmful to Florida’s environment, but Florida’s current regulations are inadequate. Florida law prohibits anyone from “sell[ing], transport[ing], collect[ing], cultivate[ing], or possess[ing] any plant, including any part or seed, of the species Melaleuca quinquenervia, Schinus terebinthifolius, Casuarina equisetifolia, Casuarina glauca, or Mimosa pigra without a permit . . . .”[9] This is a strong statute, and the listed plants certainly are highly invasive: Melaleuca was used to drain the Everglades and is incredibly hard to remove;[10] Schinis, Brazilian pepper, grows like wildfire and has infested “over 700,000 acres” in Florida;[11] Casuarina equisetifolia, Brazilian pine, makes the soil around it unlivable for other plants;[12] Casuarina glauca—similarly to snake plant—spreads quickly, outcompetes natives, and is incredibly difficult to remove;[13] and lastly Mimosa pigra reproduces and spreads quickly in wetlands, completely choking waterways.[14] All of these plants deserve to be regulated, but this short list begs the question: why not more, and especially given the similarities, why not snake plant?

Florida’s broader statutes on harmful plants also fail to adequately address the threat posed by snake plants. Florida statute prohibits the cultivation of non-native plants “in plantings greater in size than 2 contiguous acres.”[15] Because snake plants are non-native, they would likely be covered under this statute, but unfortunately this allows for two acres of snake plant to be planted, which is effectively just as detrimental as no regulation.

Additionally, Florida prohibits knowingly selling or distributing noxious weeds,[16] but, Florida’s noxious weed list includes no species of snake plant.[17] Another statute aims at protecting waterways by prohibiting planting or maintaining any species listed as Category I or II in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s Invasive Plant List “within 300 feet of springs or spring runs.”[18] This list and statute, includes one species of snake plant, Sansevieria hyacinthoides, as it is listed as a category II invasive.[19] While it is ecologically beneficial to prohibit the planting of one species of snake plant within 300 feet of a spring, unfortunately that allows planting of the same species, and others, elsewhere. Currently, the University of Florida, which the Florida legislature may, by statute, rely on for recommendations[20] lists hyacinthoides as invasive, but lists trifasciata—an incredibly similar snake plant—as a high invasion risk.[21] Yet, trifasciata has wild populations in nine counties in Florida, and hyacinthoides in twenty:[22] they are both widespread and harmful, and both have the ability to outcompete native plants that makes them so dangerous. Minimally regulating one species, and not at all regulating the other, is not a viable solution.

County-level Regulations
            Because invasives vary by county, so do the regulations. While the North Miami Development Services Department lists snake plant as an invasive species, the official list of prohibited plant species in Miami Dade County does not list any species of snake plant.[23] The species on that list “may not be sold, propagated or planted anywhere in Miami-Dade County” and must be removed before development.[24] However, both trifasciata and hyacinthoides are listed as a controlled plant in the Miami-Dade County Landscape Manual, and thus cannot be planted “within 500 feet of native plant communities.”[25] Thus, snake plants are partially regulated in Miami. It is unclear what would constitute as a “native plant community,” but if planting snake plants were prohibited within 500 feet of native plants in general, that would be a near-complete ban on snake plants. Unfortunately, Miami Dade County qualifies the definition of a controlled species as one that “if located and cultivated properly may be useful or functional as elements of landscape design.”[26] As previously stated, snake plant is frequently used in landscaping and uses the opportunity to spread quickly. Given the definition, it is unlikely Miami Dade County would interpret the regulation of controlled species to be a ban on snake plants.

Like Miami Dade County, the keys in Monroe County have their own regulation on invasive species. The county requires the development of its own list of invasive plants.[27] Monroe County defines invasive plants as “any plant species on the most recent Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list of category I or II invasive exotic plant species and/or the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force lists of invasive exotic plant species, as determined and interpreted by the County Biologist.”[28] The Keys Task Force list includes Sansevieria hyacinthoides, the only species of snake plant that is invasive in the keys.[29] Thus, ordinances at lower levels can build on and tailor state-level regulations to the specific localities invasives.

A Call For Regulation
            While different areas and different levels of governance regulate invasive species differently, a more comprehensive regulatory scheme is needed for all invasive species. County or city-level ordinances, like Miami-Dade’s and Monroe’s, must be imposed, and must cover all invasive species in the area. In the nine counties where trifasciata has wild populations and in the twenty where hyacinthoides does, regulations should prohibit the “sell[ing], transport[ing], collect[ing], cultivate[ing], or possess[ing] any” species of snake plant in the county.[30] Snake plants have a thriving market as a house plant, but when the risk of invasion is so high, counties would be better off prohibiting them entirely rather than spending precious resourses on their removal down the line. At the very least, county-level ordinances should prohibit the purposeful planting of any species of snake plant outside.

The City of Punta Gorda is a great example of what these codes could look like, as they state: “Any tree or plant on the current Florida Invasive Species Council Invasive Plant List as amended, are prohibited and shall be removed from any site prior to new development. In addition, all species of eucalyptus and ficus trees are prohibited to be sold or planted.”[31]  Any county or city affected by the invasion of snake plant could implement a similar provision, relying on the Florida Invasive Species Council Invasive Plant List, like Monroe County does, but additionally prohibiting the selling or planting of all species of snake plant.

To protect Florida’s beautiful and delicate ecosystems, implementing regulations that target all invasive species, including snake plant, is necessary, before the damage deepens beyond repair.

[1] Fla. Stat. § 581.011(15).

[2] See, e.g.,  Slowing the Spread of Invasive Species, The Nature Conservancy, https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/florida/stories-in-florida/combating-invasive-species-in-florida/ (last updated Sept. 30, 2022) (“The threat posed by invasive species is second only to habitat destruction through development.”).

[3] Nat’l Park Serv. & Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, Florida Invaders 7, https://www.rexano.org/Pythons/2008-Florida-Invaders.pdf (listing snake plant as an invasive species in Florida); Karen Pariser, Master Gardener Volunteers on… sansevieria: invasive, nuisance, or reliable addition to the garden?, Univ. of Fla. IFAS (July 30, 2021), https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/sarasotaco/2021/07/30/master-gardener-volunteers-on-sansevieria/ (“According to the latest UF/IFAS north-central-south Florida zone assessment, this group of plants presently is considered a high invasion risk, and is predicted to be invasive and not recommended by IFAS.”).

[4] Pariser, supra note 3; Richard Henley, Sansevieria in Florida-Past and Present, 95 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 295, 295 (1982).

[5] Henley, supra note 4, at 296.

[6] Mother-In-Law’s Tongue, City of Sanibel Vegetation Committee, https://mysanibel.com/DocumentCenter/View/534/Article-15-Mother-In-Laws-Tongue (“Any part of the plant—including leaves, seeds, or underground tubers—can regenerate new growth.”); Clarissa Chairez, Florida’s Hidden Invaders: Invasive Houseplants, Univ. of Fla. IFAS (Aug. 11, 2025), https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/orangeco/2025/08/11/floridas-hidden-invaders-2/.

[7] Invasive Species Awareness Week: Mother-in-law’s tongue, City of Sanibel (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.captivasanibel.com/news/2025/03/invasive-species-awareness-week-mother-in-laws-tongue/ (describing that snake plants happily tolerate wet, dry, and disturbed terrain).

[8] Invasive Species, N. Miami Fla. Dev. Servs. Dep’t, https://www.northmiamifl.gov/1523/Invasive-Species (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

[9] Fla. Stat. § 369.251(1) (2008).

[10] Melaleuca quinquenervia, Univ. of Fla. Ctr. for Aquatic & Invasive Plants, https://plant-directory.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/melaleuca-quinquenervia/ (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

[11] Schinus terebinthifolia, Univ. of Fla. Ctr. for Aquatic & Invasive Plants, https://plant-directory.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/schinus-terebinthifolia/ (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

[12] Casuarina equisetifolia, Glob. Invasive Species Database (Jan. 23, 2010), https://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=365.

[13] Casuarina glauca, Univ. of S. Fla. Plant Atlas Fla. Invasive Plants, https://plantatlas.usf.edu/flip/plant.aspx?id=66 (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

[14] Mimosa pigra, Univ. of Fla. Ctr. for Aquatic & Invasive Plants, https://plant-directory.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/mimosa-pigra/ (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

[15] Fla. Stat. § 581.083(4).

[16] Fla. Stat. § 581.091(1).

[17] Fla. Admin. Code 5B-57.007 (2020).

[18] Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 18-21.004(6)(b) (2025).

[19] FISC List of Invasive Plant Species, Fla. Invasive Species Council, https://www.floridainvasives.org/plant-list/2023-invasive-plant-species/ (last updated June 2025).

[20] Fla. Stat. § 581.083(4).

[21] Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas: Sansevieria trifasciata, Univ. of Fla. Ctr. for Aquatic & Invasive Plants, https://assessment.ifas.ufl.edu/assessments/sansevieria-trifasciata/ (last updated Aug. 8, 2022); Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas: Dracaena hyacinthoides, Univ. of Fla. Ctr. for Aquatic & Invasive Plants, https://assessment.ifas.ufl.edu/assessments/dracaena-hyacinthoides/ (last updated June 26, 2025) (note that the genus was changed from Dracaena and is now Sansevieria).

[22] Richard Wunderlin et. al., Dracaena trifasciata, Univ. of S. Fla. Atlas of Fla. Plants (2025), https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/plant/species/4330; Richard Wunderlin et. al. Dracaena hyacinthoides, Univ. of S. Fla. Atlas of Fla. Plants (2025), https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/plant/species/148.

[23] Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., Code ch. 24, art. IV., div. 2, § 24-49.9(1) (2018).

[24] Id.

[25] Id.; Miami-Dade Cnty., Miami-Dade County Controlled Plant Species, www.miamidade.gov/environment/library/guidelines/controlled-species.pdf (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

[26] Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., Code ch. 18a, § 18A-3 (2025).

[27] Monroe Cnty., Fla., Ordinance No. 013-2022, Policy 209.1.1 (2022).

[28] Monroe Ctny., Fla., Code § 101-1 (2025).

[29] Fla. Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force, List of Invasive Plants of the Florida Keys, 1 (2019) https://bugwoodcloud.org/CDN/floridainvasives/Keys/FKIETF_List_2019_list_final.pdf; Wunderlin et. al., supra note 22.

[30] Modelled off of Fla. Stat. § 369.251(1).

[31] Invasive Species, City of Punta Gorda (2025), https://www.ci.punta-gorda.fl.us/residents/landscape/invasive-species (last visited Oct. 3, 2025).

Right to Farm or Right to Monopolize? How Litigation Shields Accelerate Agricultural Consolidation and Environmental Degradation

By Grace Cunningham

            For decades, pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Bayer (formerly Monsanto) has insisted that its Roundup herbicide was safe to control weeds, despite one of its active ingredients being linked to cancer and shown to be carcinogenic to humans.[1]Across the country, veterans exposed to cancer-causing chemicals in contaminated water at Camp Lejeune are just now beginning to seek justice.[2] And in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), Abbot Laboratories, a global healthcare company,  pushed baby formula out to the most vulnerable population despite its links to necrotizing enterocolitis––a serious and often fatal disease.[3]

These high-profile cases demonstrate that when corporate interests endanger public health and the environment, the legal system is often the only path to accountability and justice. But what happens when that path is blocked? For rural communities, Right-to-Farm laws (RTFLs) are doing just that. These laws have shielded corporate-owned mega-farms from lawsuits and have allowed agriculture consolidation to accelerate, leaving rural communities and traditional farms to bear the environmental, health, and economic costs.[4]

Developed in the 1970s and 1980s, RTFLs were the response to a sprawling suburbia encroaching on farmland.[5] As residential development expanded into agricultural areas, long-established farms increasingly faced nuisance lawsuits – claims that ordinary farming activity unreasonably interfered with neighboring properties. RTFLs were designed to limit these suits and protect farmers from liability while adhering to standard agricultural practices.[6]

Overtime, lobbying efforts from large agribusiness have expanded the scope of Right-to-farm laws to coincide with the market consolidation and growth of industrial agriculture.[7] State legislators expanded what “normal” practice means to cover these industrial-scale activities.[8] Legislators also redefined phrases such as “significant change” to exclude the expansion of size or the conversion of a small farm into a Concentrated Animal Feed Operation (CAFO).[9] These Right-to-Farm laws were deliberately re-drawn to fit the new wave of industrialized agriculture, all while excluding traditional farms.[10]

The effect of these changes has been profound. As consolidation increased, a small handful of corporations now control the vast majority of livestock markets, leaving independent farmers with little to no bargaining power.[11] Communities near these factory farms face declining property values due to odor, water contamination, and public health risks tied to poor air quality.[12] While RTFLs were meant to help rural communities, they now are used to block rural residents from accessing justice.

Many state RTFL protections require agriculture operations to be of a commercial scale or meet acreage requirements.[13] Notably, there are currently no RTFLs that are specifically focused on protecting traditional and family farmers. In 1982, Minnesota was the only state to define “family farm,” then subsequently struck down this provision.[14]

Going back to the original intent of these RTFLs, to protect farmers and farmland from urban takeover, it is clear that the laws were designed with good intentions.[15] However, over time, these laws have been exploited to serve the interests of factory farms and have accelerated the path to consolidation of the agricultural industry. Consequently, this has left traditional farms and rural communities vulnerable to the unregulated factories put up next door.[16]

Closing loopholes that have allowed factory farms to escape litigation is necessary to hold industrial agriculture accountable to the communities that they pollute. At the same time, RTFLs should continue to protect independent family farmers while preserving the original purpose of these laws. This would allow traditional farmers to have a better chance at competing in the marketplace and could revitalize rural economies.

The benefits extend far beyond economics. Protecting traditional farms while limiting the expansion of industrial-scale factories would have significant environmental benefits. Factory farms are notorious for their contribution to local pollution and worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.[17] By protecting traditional farmers, who are far better stewards of the land, we can reduce the environmental harms of modern-day agriculture.

Just as lawsuits against Bayer, the federal government, and Abbott have been critical in exposing the hidden costs of unsafe practices and products, litigation remains an essential tool for holding corporations accountable. When RTFLs are manipulated to block access to the courts, rural communities lose the same chance at justice that cancer patients, veterans, and families in NICUs have fought to secure. By restoring RTFLs to their original purpose of protecting traditional farmers, we can use the legal system to work as a safeguard for public health, the environment, and the future of farming.

[1] ConsumerSafety, Roundup Cancer Lawsuit: 2020 Updates & Settlements (last updated Sept. 23, 2024), https://www.consumersafety.org/product-lawsuits/roundup/.

[2] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Health Issues (last updated July 28, 2025), https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/camp-lejeune-water-contamination/.

[3] International Baby Food Action Network, Abbott Must Pay $495M in Infant Formula Trial for Hiding Risks (Aug. 12, 2024), https://www.ibfan.org/abbott-must-pay-495m-in-infant-formula-trial-for-hiding-risks/.

[4] Loka Ashwood et al., How “Right-to-Farm” Laws Hurt Farmers, Disenfranchise Voters, and Empower Corporations, Barn Raising Media (Jan. 22, 2024), https://barnraisingmedia.com/right-to-farm-laws-hurt-farmers-disenfranchise-voters-empower-corporations/.

[5] Terence J. Centner, Governments and Unconstitutional Takings: When Do Right-To-Farm Laws Go Too Far? 33 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 87, 88 (2006).

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 90.

[8] Danielle Diamond et al., Agricultural Exceptionalism, Environmental Injustice, and U.S. Right-to-Farm Laws, 52 Env’t. L. Rep. 10727 (2022).

[9] Ashwood et al., How “Right-to-Farm” Laws Hurt Farmers, Barn Raising Media (Jan. 22, 2024).

[10] Neil D. Hamilton, Right-to-Farm Laws Reconsidered: Ten Reasons Why Legislative Efforts to Resolve Agricultural Nuisances May Be Ineffective, 3 Drake J. Agri. L. 103, 112 (1998).

[11] Mary Hendrickson, et al., The Food System: Concentration and Its Impacts 1 (2020) https://farmaction.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Hendrickson-et-al.-2020.-Concentration-and-Its-Impacts-FINAL.pdf.

[12] Id. at 18.

[13] See, e.g., Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 7, §152(5) (2025); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-4402 (2024); Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-102.

[14] Ashwood et al., supra note 9.

[15] Centner, supra note 5, at 88,

[16] Don E. Albrecht, The Industrial Transformation of Farm Communities: Implications for Family Structure and Socioeconomic Conditions, 63 Rural Sociology 51 (1998).

[17] Karuppan Sakadevan & Minh Long Nguyen, Livestock Production and Its Impact on Nutrient Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 141 Sci.s in Agronomy 147, 155 (2017).

Are Youth Plaintiffs Winning the Court Battle but Losing the Climate War? Lessons from Montana and Hawai’i Youth Plaintiff Climate Cases

By Swithin Shearer

            Young people occupy a unique space in the fight against climate change. Today’s youth are projected to see some of the most drastic climate change impacts unless countries take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[1] However, the voting age is 18 or older in the vast majority of countries.[2] Without a political voice, youth can be forgotten or excluded from the climate change conversation. Youth have raised their voices and responded by filing climate lawsuits against the government to effectuate positive change.[3] But does litigation, or a court victory, necessarily result in climate or environmental benefits? The classic legal answer is: it depends.

Two recent cases in the United States, brought on behalf of young people in Montana[4] and Hawai’i[5], are illustrative. In Held v. Montana and Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation, the plaintiffs demanded that their voices be heard as part of the climate conversation. In both cases, youth plaintiffs sued their State to demand changes to policies that adversely affected the environment.[6] The plaintiffs in each case alleged the State violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment”[7] when the State endorsed the use of fossil fuels.[8] The plaintiffs in both cases leveraged environmental protections embedded in their state constitutions to challenge the government. And, in both cases, they won their legal battles. For the Navahine F. plaintiffs, the on-the-ground outcome was a happy ending; the Held plaintiffs were not so lucky.

Montana Litigation: Empty Victory

Montana youth are arguably worse off than before the Held decision. In Held, the plaintiffs’ argument centered around the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s analysis (or lack thereof) of GHG emissions during environmental review pursuant to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”).[9] The district court determined the statutory scheme for environmental review was not compatible with the constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment.[10] Rather than accepting the district court’s decision, the State elected to appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.[11] Two of the issues on appeal were whether the Montana Constitution required a “stable climate system” and whether the challenged portions of MEPA were unconstitutional.[12]

By challenging the substantive core of the district court’s decision, Montana showed it was not willing to improve its environmental policy voluntarily. After the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision,[13] the legislature passed two bills in response.[14] The bills amended MEPA by making evaluation of GHG emissions optional and eliminating the unconstitutional portions that prohibited evaluation of GHG emissions.[15]

Combined, the changes to MEPA weaken environmental protections for actions requiring environmental review. GHG emission data, if evaluated, may only be “given appropriate consideration and assessment.”[16] Previously, GHG emissions could be considered in decision-making.[17] Legislators had the opportunity to bolster environmental protections by requiring, rather than prohibiting, GHG emission assessment. Instead, they downgraded the value of emissions data by choosing to make evaluation optional and limiting the use of that information. This may ultimately leave Montanans, and the youth plaintiffs who brought the suit, in a more vulnerable position than they previously occupied.

Hawai’i Litigation: Ideal Outcome

In Navahine F., the youth plaintiffs argued their constitutional rights had been violated because Hawai’i’s carbon emissions had no reasonable prospect of decreasing enough to meet the State’s “Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target” by 2045.[18] In contrast with Held, the Navahine F. litigation in Hawai’i resulted in a favorable settlement agreement that required the State to, among other terms, “develop and implement a concrete and comprehensive statewide plan . . . to reduce GHG emissions . . . .”[19] The Hawai’i Department of Transportation (HDOT) has since set a goal to achieve “zero emissions in the transportation sector.”[20] HDOT has also drafted a plan for GHG reduction across the State in order to achieve that goal;[21] a final plan is scheduled to be completed by October 2025.[22] The State must set five-year “GHG emissions reduction targets” and perform a periodic “comprehensive review and update.”[23] Unlike Montana’s response to the Held decision, Hawai’i has shown its willingness to embrace its responsibility to protect the environment for its citizens in the aftermath of litigation.

Reflecting on Held and Navahine F.: Was Litigation Successful?

Two key questions arise when comparing the outcomes of the Held and Navahine F. cases. First, why were the outcomes so starkly different? And second, does a court win really mean the plaintiffs will be better off? The answer to both questions seems to hinge on whether the government’s actions are voluntary or forced. The aftermath of Held shows the risks of climate litigation when a state’s elected officials do not wish to grapple with climate issues. Where a state takes a hostile view toward climate-conscious policies, a victory in court does not necessarily translate to a successful shift in a government’s climate policies. Yet, it is those circumstances where climate litigation is the most enticing to try to force the government to shift its policies. This is particularly important for youth plaintiffs, who are unable to vote to influence policy. Litigation therefore provides a much-needed forum for youth to seek justice on climate-related issues, especially those that violate explicit state constitutional protections.

Youth plaintiff lawsuits that challenge a state’s climate policies based on state constitutional protections are fairly novel.[24] Such litigation is unlikely to be widespread; only a handful of state constitutions have sufficiently specific provisions protecting a citizen’s right to a clean and healthful environment to support legal claims such as those raised in Held and Navahine F.[25] Yet, the possibility of success has prompted similar lawsuits in other states.[26] However, youth plaintiffs would be wise to pause before jumping into litigation. They will need to consider the possibility that their government may choose to further retreat from environmental policies when faced with climate litigation, as the Held plaintiffs are now witnessing in Montana. Because in Montana’s case, the youth plaintiffs won the court battle, but they may have lost the climate war.

[1] See Overarching Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 3: How will climate change affect the lives of today’s children tomorrow, if no immediate action is taken?, IPCC (June 16, 2023), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-questions/keyfaq3.

[2] Voting Age by Country 2025, World Population Rev., https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-country (last visited Sept. 5, 2025).

[3] See, e.g., Complaint at 1, Dunn v. Wis. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, No. 2025CV002797 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 22, 2025); Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020); Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–4, Lighthiser v. Trump, No. CV-25-54-BU-DLC (D. Mont. May 29, 2025).

[4] Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. 1st Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023).

[5] Complaint, Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Dep’t of Transp., No. 1CCV-22-0000631 (1st Cir. Jun. 1, 2022).

[6] Complaint at 1–3, Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 13, 2020); Complaint at 1–4, Navahine F. No. 1CCV-22-0000631.

[7] Mont. Const. art. II, § 3; id. art. IX, § 1; Haw. Const. art. XI, § 9.

[8] Complaint at 2, 35, Held No. CDV-2020-307; Complaint at 4, Navahine F. No. 1CCV-22-0000631.

[9] Complaint at 2, 35–36, Held No. CDV-2020-307.

[10] Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307, 2023 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 2, at *129.

[11] Notice of Appeal of Governor Greg Gianforte, Mont. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, Mont. Dep’t of Nat. Res. and Conservation, and Mont. Dep’t of Transp., 2024 MT 312 (No. DA 23-0575).

[12] Held v. Montana, 2024 MT 312, ¶ 1.

[13] Id.

[14] A third bill, H.B. 229, was introduced. H.B 229, 69th Leg., 2025 Sess. (Mont. 2025). Based on the initial amendments it made to MEPA, it could have expanded, or at least not scaled back, environmental protections. However, H.B. 229 died in process. Id.

[15] H.B. 285, § 12 (amending § 75-1-201, MCA), 69th Leg., 2025 Session. (Mont. 2025).

[16] H.B. 285, § 12, 69th Leg., 2025 Sess. (Mont. 2025) (amending Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(b)(ii)) (emphasis added).

[17] Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(b)(ii) (emphasis added).

[18] Complaint at 3–4, Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Dep’t of Transp., No. 1CCV-22-0000631 (1st Cir. June 1, 2022).

[19] Joint Stipulation and Order re: Settlement Ex. A: Settlement Agreement and Release 5, Navahine F. v. Hawai’i Dep’t of Transp., No. 1CCV-22-0000631 (June 20, 2024).

[20] Hawai’i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan, State of Hawai’i Dep’t of Transp., https://highways.hidot.hawaii.gov/stories/s/h9gp-xxmt (last visited Sept. 19, 2025).

[21] Hawai’i Dep’t of Transp., Hawai’i Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan DRAFT (June 27, 2025).

[22] Hawai’i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan, supra note 20.

[23] Joint Stipulation and Order re: Settlement Ex. A: Settlement Agreement and Release 5, Navahine F., No. 1CCV-22-0000631.

[24] See Dana Drugmand, Advocates Nationwide Push for State-Level Green Constitutional Amendments (Mar. 28, 2024), https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/advocates-nationwide-push-state-level-green-constitutional-amendments.

[25] Id.

[26] See, e.g., Complaint at 1, Dunn v. Wis. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, No. 2025CV002797 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 22, 2025); Complaint at 1–4; see also Natalie R. v. Utah, 2025 UT 5, 567 P.3d 550.