Regulating the Climate Crisis: Federal Authority and the Future of Environmental Governance

by Jack Frischen, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

As the dangers of climate change become more and more prevalent, so too does the importance of environmental regulation. While climate change has already begun to affect humans, as evidenced by an overall reduction in global food production,¹ the worst has yet to come. These terrible effects can be mitigated if our federal government, as well as the leadership of other major countries, start to take more action to combat climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that, “any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a livable future.”² Across the country, these effects could result in mass migrations away from unlivable cities, trigger a healthcare and health insurance crisis, lead to alarming mortality rates, and cause countless other effects.³ In essence, this would be a national emergency.

In such a national emergency, the government would be justified in asserting greater control through legislation such as the National Emergencies Act, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and the Insurrection Act.⁴ Additionally, the government may be forced to promulgate new legislation in response to the collapse of major cities and our healthcare system. Some environmental changes will be irreversible over the next several centuries.⁵ This could justify the expansion of federal powers for an indefinite period of time, leading to an authoritative federal government restricting liberties and controlling more of our lives than ever before in U.S. history.

This Article demonstrates not only how this can be achieved through constitutional legislation, but also how the government could maintain control if the climate crisis is left unaddressed. Part II considers the environmental laws already codified in the U.S., the extent of the federal government’s power, and its history of excessive governmental overreach. Finally, Part II discusses the current state of the environment and why it is increasingly necessary that the federal government respond to the climate crisis. This leads to Part III, which proposes an adequate increase in environmental regulation by the federal government, to avoid a legitimate federal takeover of the everyday life of U.S. citizens. First, by illustrating what the U.S. may look like if climate change is not addressed, and then by proposing regulations that may be adequate to avoid the necessity of the need for federal intervention once the climate crisis has started to fully affect the lives of U.S. citizens.

II. Background

Increasing regulation is not a small task and will itself result in a decrease of the current liberties U.S. residents have come to expect. This Section first examines the current state of environmental policy by reviewing the prominent federal statutes enacted to protect the environment. Then, the scope of federal powers by reviewing the current legislation that permits the federal government to assume excessive authority during emergencies. It then walks through examples of times in which the federal government has overreached into the lives of U.S. citizens, for better or for worse. Finally, it explains why additional regulation is necessary by analyzing the current state of the environment and demonstrating how the lack of adequate legislation addressing its decline has resulted in its extreme degradation.

A. Existing Federal Environmental Law

This Article analyzes five prominent federal environmental laws, the first of which is the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). This statute was created and codified to “declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems; and to establish a council on environmental quality.”⁶ NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of any proposed actions making a decision.⁷ NEPA “simply prescribes a process for preventing uninformed agency action.”⁸

However, NEPA is not without its weaknesses. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that when agencies review proposed projects, they do not have to look at the big picture, only the environmental impacts that are right under their noses.⁹ This ruling makes it more difficult for the public to challenge the effects of things like increased upstream oil production or downstream refining activity from a proposed railway project.¹⁰

The Clean Air Act (“CAA”) on the other hand, sets a goal to “protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources.”¹¹ According to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), “this law authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.”¹² The CAA mandates emission controls for 187 hazardous air pollutants, establishes a cap-and-trade system to reduce acid rain, prevents the significant deterioration of air quality in areas that presently maintain clean air, and implements a protocol to phase out the majority of the ozone-depleting chemicals.¹³ While the CAA is a crucial environmental statute, scholars have argued that it actually has a major design flaw.¹⁴ “The problem is that, if the air quality requirements are working, they cancel out the air pollution benefits of the technology requirements.”¹⁵ Essentially, the decreased pollution resulting from better technology allows the state to ease up their regulation of existing sources by the same amount, resulting in a net zero effect on air quality from new technology sources.¹⁶

The federal regulation covering the waters of the U.S. is known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA has two crucial elements; first, it establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the U.S., and second, it regulates the water quality standards set for the U.S. surface waters.¹⁷ Put succinctly, “the main goal of the CWA is ‘to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’” To accomplish this, the law provides that “‘the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful’ without a permit that specifies how much pollution can be released.”¹⁸ While the reach of the CWA was recently limited by the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA, as well as the overturning of Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Act is still understood to regulate and protect the majority of the surface waters in the U.S.¹⁹

The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), which regulates the treatment of the nation’s flora and fauna, states that it is “the policy of congress that all federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species.”²⁰ The statute itself requires that all federal agencies ensure that their authorized actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats.²¹ The World Wildlife Fund has described the ESA as “our nation’s most effective law to protect at-risk species from extinction, with stellar success rate: 99% of species listed on it have avoided extinction.”²² As it stands now, the ESA is one of the federal government’s primary tools for protecting the nation’s flora and fauna, as well as the critical habitats that they occupy.²³ Nevertheless, the ESA is not without its shortcomings. Out of the thousands of species that have been listed as endangered or threatened, only 54 have recovered to a level where they no longer require protection.²⁴

The last major federal environmental statute this Section will address is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), commonly referred to as the “superfund.” CERCLA “provides a Federal ‘Superfund’ to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutant and contaminants into the environment.”²⁵ The Act itself does three things: (1) establishes prohibitions and requirements regarding closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; (2) holds liable the persons responsible for releasing hazardous waste at these sites; and (3) establishes a fund to clean up hazardous waste sites when the responsible party cannot be identified.²⁶ While the language of CERCLA itself is as complex as any other federal regulation, the basis of it is clear: it creates a fund by taxing hazardous waste polluters and uses the proceeds to remediate the hazardous waste sites themselves.²⁷

B. The Extent of Government Powers

Over the course of U.S. history, the federal government has codified several laws that give it extreme discretion during times of emergency. These statutes raise concern because the definition of an ‘emergency’ is left to the government’s discretion. In doing so, they grant the federal government the authority to consolidate power when their language allows for it.²⁸ This Section examines the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (“NEA”), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (“Stafford Act”), and the Insurrection Act of 1807, and analyzes the breadth of authority they confer during times of national crisis.²⁹

Under NEA, the declaration of a national emergency by the President grants the Executive access to powers and authority under certain statutes that are not otherwise available.³⁰ When it was codified, NEA terminated all existing national emergencies and created mechanisms for congressional oversight of future emergency declarations.³¹ A national emergency is terminated in one of three ways: a presidential proclamation, a concurrent resolution by Congress, or by simply allowing the emergency to expire.³² While Congress can end an emergency, its joint resolution can be vetoed by the President in the same manner as all other legislation.³³

The breadth of NEA does have its limitations. Title III of NEA states that no powers made available by statute are operative unless and until the President indicates the specific provisions of law that they or any other executive officer will act under.³⁴ Unfortunately, the limits of NEA have not been directly answered by federal courts, and in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in INS v. Chadha striking down the legislative veto, the power NEA affords the executive is inconceivable.³⁵

Another major piece of legislation, the Stafford Act, was signed into law on November 23, 1988 to amend the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The language of the statute declares that, as a result of the carnage that previous disasters have caused to both humans and the government, “special measures, designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, are necessary.”³⁶ This Act intends to alleviate the suffering of states and local governments affected by disasters.³⁷ It achieves this by providing them with federal relief and encouraging state and local governments to prepare for and mitigate disasters before they occur.³⁸

The Stafford Act specifically defines “emergency” as “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of catastrophe in any part of the U.S.”³⁹ This gives the President broad discretion to say what is and what is not worthy of federal assistance during times of emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) is the federal agency responsible for coordinating the federal response to disasters that have received the Presidential disaster declaration.⁴⁰ FEMA works across the country to help communities prepare for possible natural disaster risks and recover after the disaster has concluded.⁴¹ Considering how the Act defines “emergency,” the President is given serious discretion for what emergencies receive relief through FEMA.

The last relevant federal statute is the Insurrection Act. “Although it is often referred to as the ‘Insurrection Act of 1807,’ the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871.”⁴² The Insurrection Act authorizes the deployment of troops in three distinct ways.⁴³ First, under Section 251 the President may deploy troops when a State’s legislature, or governor on some occasions, requests assistance.⁴⁴ The other two sections allow the President to deploy troops without a request, or even consent, from the affected State.⁴⁵ Section 252 allows for deployment of troops to “enforce the laws” or to “suppress rebellion” during “unlawful obstruction, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” that make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law.⁴⁶ Section 253 allows the President to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” when it “hinders the execution of the laws.”⁴⁷ Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy both used Section 253 to deploy troops to the South to desegregate schools following the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.⁴⁸ Section 253 further authorizes the President to deploy troops in efforts to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the U.S. or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”⁴⁹ The question remains whether the President is warranted in using military force against people whenever they break federal law after the Insurrection Act is invoked.

C. History of Government Overreach

The federal government has used emergency powers several times throughout history to consolidate control. In 1798, as the U.S. neared war with France, the Federalist-controlled Congress enacted what may have been the first articles of legislation restricting liberties guaranteed by the Constitution in times of crisis.⁵⁰ The Federalists believed that the Democratic-Republicans’ criticism of Federalists policies was disloyal and feared that non-citizens of the U.S. might sympathize with the French in the event of war.⁵¹ To combat this, Congress passed four laws that are collectively referred to as the Alien and Sedition Acts.⁵² Among other things, these Acts, “authorized the president to deport ‘aliens,’ and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime.”⁵³ The Sedition Act, in particular, made it a crime for American citizens to “‘print, utter, or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious writing’ about the government.”⁵⁴

Almost 150 years later, the federal government again leveraged war, coupled with drought, to consolidate power by rationing food, gasoline, and other essential items.⁵⁵ To meet the surging demand for basic materials during World War II, the federal government established a rationing system to conserve crucial goods.⁵⁶ This system involved setting limits on the purchasing of certain commodities that could otherwise be used to benefit the war, impacting nearly every family in the U.S.⁵⁷

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, a new national emergency formed, and with it aggressive new legislation granting the federal government surveillance powers that had long been prevented.⁵⁸ The Patriot Act was passed in a nominal forty-five days with minimal opposition in Congress.⁵⁹ Among other things, The Patriot Act allowed the government to track Americans’ online behavior, made it easier to acquire a warrant, authorized the FBI and CIA to carry out wiretapping on phones and computers, and “eviscerated the firewall that had been in place since the 1970s shielding US citizens from foreign surveillance.”⁶⁰ The Snowden documents showed that by September 14, the director of the National Security Agency had begun snooping on the communications of people based within the borders of the U.S.⁶¹ Even more expeditiously, by the end of the day of September 11, John Poindexter had already drafted the plan titled “Total Information Awareness” (“TIA”) that would later be used by the Pentagon.⁶² TIA gathered the digital data of all Americans without a warrant, innocent or guilty, and analyzed it for patterns of terrorist activity.⁶³

Most recently, President Trump has deployed National Guard troops into multiple U.S. cities and Washington D.C. by conflating violent crime and immigration as a single crisis that the U.S. faces.⁶⁴ President Trump has sent troops to four Democratic-run cities and continues to threaten to send them to more.⁶⁵ While U.S. laws prevent the military from interfering with the police power of the states, President Trump has discussed invoking the Insurrection Act to circumvent these laws.⁶⁶ The Trump Administration has connected crime and immigration and found that the danger they pose to the U.S. constitutes an emergency that warrants the suppression of long-held states’ rights.⁶⁷ In times of emergency, the federal government has already restricted First Amendment rights, controlled access to food and other goods, surveilled our digital data, and deployed federal troops to U.S. cities in spite of laws restricting this practice. Whether these circumstances are truly emergencies is left for historians to opine on.

D. Current State of the Environment

As it stands now, the state of the environment in the U.S. is already near emergency level intervention.⁶⁸ Humans are already suffering from the effects of the climate crisis and without government intervention, the consequences will continue to worsen. Two important effects require further consideration. First, studies have shown that warmer days lead to an increase in violent crime.⁶⁹ A study analyzing weather and crime date from 28 U.S. cities between 2015 and 2021 “revealed that temperature volatility is significantly associated with the incidence of violence, with unexpectedly warmer days linked to increases in robbery and homicide, and cooler temperatures showing the opposite trend.”⁷⁰ The second crucial effect is the relationship between the changing environment, human security, and poverty.⁷¹ Competition over limited food and water, forced migrations, the disproportionate effect on the poorest and most vulnerable, and the increased security risks for women and girls, all caused by the degradation of the environment, will increase human insecurity and poverty.⁷² As the climate crisis continues to go unanswered, the harmful effects will be more and more devastating to the entire U.S.

III. Discussion

As the climate crisis worsens, the government will have no option but to respond. The federal government has a long history of taking control during emergencies, and the effects on the environment described above could not be viewed as anything but an array of national emergencies. Natural disasters already warrant FEMA consideration, crime has already been used to justify federal intervention on state’s police power, national security has justified a surveillance state, and war and drought has merited rationing of essential goods.⁷³ The precedent is set and will not be difficult to expand as the climate emergency unfolds. This Section analyzes how the government will respond to emergencies as they present themselves across the country and will leave it no other option but to take control or otherwise allow society, as U.S. residents know it, to crumble. This Section then paints a much more optimistic picture, where we expand and increase environmental regulation to avoid the possibility of a federal takeover. This will require a revamp of our current understanding of federal law, environmentally conscious amendments to our current legislation, and the promulgation of new laws that focus on protecting the Environment.

A. The Future of America if We Do Not Increase Environmental Regulation Now

As the effects of climate change continue to intensify, the U.S. will find itself in a state of crisis. If the government fails to act now, natural and urban environments, public health, essential infrastructure, and food security will all suffer,⁷⁴ leaving the government no choice but to act aggressively in the future. If all of the predictions come true, we can expect to see more and more parts of the country become unlivable.⁷⁵ An increase in natural disasters like hurricanes will displace people and destroy critical infrastructure, especially in coastal communities.⁷⁶ As days get warmer, we can expect to see an increase in famine, poverty, and violent crimes across the nation.⁷⁷ As more infrastructure is destroyed and disease becomes more common, the strain on insurance companies may be too much to manage. Our water supplies, especially in critical areas like the Great Plains, will become increasingly scarce and farmers will suffer the cost of irrigating this land.⁷⁸ Further, the U.S. farm industry may struggle to keep up with the food demand of its citizens.⁷⁹ The resulting national emergency the U.S. government will face is an inconceivable number of regional emergencies across the U.S., of which this Article only begins to address.

If the U.S. were truly in such a state, then the government’s response would need to be aggressive and swift. Consider the federal statutes described in Part II, NEA, the Stafford Act, and the Insurrection Act. These, and others yet to be promulgated, would serve as the instrumentalities the federal government uses to assert control, in an effort to mitigate environmental harms. While laws typically move slowly, that is not always the case in times of crisis, as demonstrated by the swift passage of the Patriot Act following September 11.⁸⁰ The federal government could use NEA to declare emergencies across the country,⁸¹ and, because of the delayed response to the climate crisis, these emergencies could be continually extended until the major issues are resolved, which could take decades if at all possible. Additionally, the increase in extreme weather events and natural disasters would require more FEMA consideration through the Stafford Act forcing the government to decide which areas deserve support over others.⁸² As FEMA funds diminish, the government will be forced to provide funds only for critical regions like New York City over areas with smaller populations and less capital like Hawai’i and Puerto Rico.

An increase in crime, especially in the cities, could require deployment of federal troops (like President Trump has already attempted) through the Insurrection Act.⁸³ Crime would likely also justify an increase in surveillance, especially in areas that the government has deemed are worth protecting, as well as the suppression of negative speech.⁸⁴ It will be crucial that the government protects the regions that will still be viable by any legal means necessary. If people challenge the government’s protection, their conduct could be characterized as sedition and their speech silenced. The federal government would slowly become more and more involved in the daily affairs and control of the people. The hit to the farming industry as well as the shortage of water could leave the government no option but to begin rationing.⁸⁵ Other essential materials like healthcare supplies could experience the same effects.⁸⁶ The cost of ignoring climate change could quite simply be the end of democracy in the U.S. and the beginning of an authoritarian state in charge of almost every aspect of its citizens’ lives.

B. Expand and Increase Environmental Regulation Now

The only way to avoid the tragedy described above is for the federal government to start taking climate change seriously now. Current environmental regulations are insufficient to ensure a livable future for Americans,⁸⁷ and relying solely on businesses and citizens to reduce emissions will likely be in vain. The fear of increasing federal intervention is very reasonable, but as the only body with jurisdiction covering the entire U.S., the federal government is the only way to collectively tackle the incoming effects of climate change and avoid an authoritarian state in later years. Broadly put, there are three things the government must do to achieve these results. First, the judiciary must expand its understanding of the current legislation to be more environmentally conscious. Freedom of speech, the right to own property, the right to privacy, the state’s police power, and likely many others, are all rights guaranteed by the Constitution that are implicated by the Supreme Court’s failure to act.⁸⁸ Second, the legislature must amend the current environmental legislation to grant environmental agencies more power and discretion in all of their decision making, using the powers afforded by CERCLA, such as taxing entities that are affected by the act and holding potential offenders strictly liable,⁸⁹ as the floor for regulation. This would require a more active role by the legislature as well as an overhaul of current codified law. Lastly, the legislation must promulgate new laws aimed at protecting the environment through a precautionary and scientific approach. All three branches of government are required to act for this to be effective, but the benefits that would derive from this could prevent a climate catastrophe and a resulting government takeover.⁹⁰

IV. Conclusion

The climate crisis is already unraveling, and the most disastrous effects are looming in the not-so-distant future. The government’s failure to respond now is laying the foundation for its justification to restrict essential liberties to curb the national emergency facing the nation. As this Article demonstrates, there is already significant legislation that would help achieve this and more could be promulgated when the crisis intensifies. A climate disaster, and the resulting federal takeover, can be mitigated, or potentially even avoided, if the federal government takes immediate action. Time is running out; the U.S. government must increase and expand its regulation of the environment to a level that will secure a viable future. The longer action is delayed, the worse the effects of climate change will be, making the justification for restricting liberties increasingly reasonable. An adequate response to the climate crisis now could curb these fears completely. It is imperative the federal government begin taking climate science seriously and change its policy to adequately address the approaching national emergency.

Cover Photo by Matt Palmer on Unsplash

Jack Frischen

References

1
Deepak K Ray et al., Climate Change has Likely Already Affected Global Food Production, PLOS One, May 2019.
2
The Effects of Climate Change, NASA, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/ [https://perma.cc/D2Z7-E22T] (last visited Apr. 15, 2026).
3
See Caroline Brobeil, Rutgers-Camden Researcher Finds Link Between Volatile Temperatures and Violence, Rutgers-Camden (Feb. 8, 2024), https://camden.rutgers.edu/news/how-weather-affects-crime-rates; United Nations, Five Ways the Climate Crisis Impacts Human Security, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security [https://perma.cc/5KXQ-TV8G].
4
National Emergencies Act of 1976, 50 U.S.C. § 1601-51; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121-207; Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. § 251-55.
5
The Effects of Climate Change, NASA, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/ [https://perma.cc/D2Z7-E22T] (last visited Apr. 6, 2026).
6
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
7
Administrative Conference of the U.S., Information Interchange Bulletin No. 012 National Environmental Policy Act Basics (2021).
8
Id.
9
Chelsi Moy, Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Systematic Dismantling of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), The Wilderness Society (June 12, 2025), https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/death-thousand-cuts-systematic-dismantling-national-environmental-policy-act-nepa#.
10
Id.
11
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401.
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Clean Air Act, (July 25, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act [https://perma.cc/9C87-U8UB].
13
Id.
14
Dan Farber, A Design Flaw in the Clean Air Act, Legal Planet (Sept. 1, 2022).
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Clean Water Act, (May 22, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act [https://perma.cc/Q8AQ-ZW5K].
18
Shelia Hu, The Clean Water Act 101, Natural Resources Defense Council (Nov. 17, 2025), https://www.nrdc.org/stories/clean-water-act-101.
19
Id.
20
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531.
21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Endangered Species Act, (July 25, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered-species-act [https://perma.cc/S2U4-4HJA].
22
World Wildlife Fund, The US Endangered Species Act, https://www.worldwildlife.org/our-work/policy/legislation/the-us-endangered-species-act/.
23
Id.
24
Columbia Climate School, Too Little, Too Late: Study Examines why the Endangered Species Act Fails, State of the Planet: News from the Columbia Climate School (Oct. 12, 2022), https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/10/12/too-little-too-late-study-examines-why-the-endangered-species-act-fails/ [https://perma.cc/7EJD-TFMD].
25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), (July 25, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act [https://perma.cc/PT4U-JJ66].
26
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund: CERCLA Overview, (Sept. 22, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview [https://perma.cc/M758-CTZQ].
27
Id.
28
National Emergencies Act of 1976, 50 U.S.C. § 1601-51; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121-207; Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. § 251-55.
29
Id.
30
Congressional Research Service, National Emergencies Act: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate 1 (2025).
31
Id.
32
National Emergencies Act of 1976, 50 U.S.C. § 1621.
33
Congressional Research Service, National Emergencies Act: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate 13 (2025).
34
National Emergencies Act of 1976, 50 U.S.C. § 1631.
35
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
36
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5122.
40
Federal Emergency Management Agency, How FEMA Works, (July 7, 2025), https://www.fema.gov/about/how-fema-works#FEMA-During[https://perma.cc/9RBH-P6QM].
41
Id.
42
Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. § 251-55.
43
Id.
44
Id. at § 251.
45
Id. at § 252-53.
46
Id. at § 252.
47
Id. at § 253.
48
Joseph Nunn, The Insurrection Act Explained, Brennan Center for Justice (June 10, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained [https://perma.cc/92WS-BVAZ].
49
Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. § 253.
50
National Archives, Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), (July 27, 2023), https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts[https://perma.cc/D7Q9-9S52].
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
The National WWII Museum, Rationing, (Nov. 25, 2025), https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/rationing-during-wwii[https://perma.cc/P952-LJAT].
56
Id.
57
Id.
58
Ed Pilkington, ‘Panic Made us Vulnerable’: How 9/11 Made the US Surveillance State – and the Americans who Fought Back, The Guardian (Sept. 4, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/surveillance-state-september-11-panic-made-us-vulnerable[https://perma.cc/WUD5-HHQV].
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.
62
Id.
63
Id.
64
Kat Lonsdorf, Trump’s National Guard Deployments Aren’t Random. They Were Planned Years Ago, National Public Radio, (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/11/03/nx-s1-5593112/national-guard-mass-deportations-trump-2026 [https://perma.cc/THC3-8WMV].
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
The Effects of Climate Change, NASA, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/ [https://perma.cc/D2Z7-E22T] (last visited Apr. 15, 2026).
69
Caroline Brobeil, Rutgers-Camden Researcher Finds Link Between Volatile Temperatures and Violence, Rutgers-Camden (Feb. 8, 2024), https://camden.rutgers.edu/news/how-weather-affects-crime-rates.
70
Id.
71
United Nations, Five Ways the Climate Crisis Impacts Human Security, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security [https://perma.cc/5KXQ-TV8G].
72
Id.
73
See Federal Emergency Management Agency, How FEMA Works, (July 7, 2025), https://www.fema.gov/about/how-fema-works#FEMA-During [https://perma.cc/9RBH-P6QM]; Kat Lonsdorf, Trump’s National Guard Deployments Aren’t Random. They Were Planned Years Ago, National Public Radio, (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/11/03/nx-s1-5593112/national-guard-mass-deportations-trump-2026[https://perma.cc/THC3-8WMV]; Ed Pilkington, ‘Panic Made us Vulnerable’: How 9/11 Made the US Surveillance State – and the Americans who Fought Back, The Guardian (Sept. 4, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/surveillance-state-september-11-panic-made-us-vulnerable [https://perma.cc/WUD5-HHQV]; The National WWII Museum, Rationing, (Nov. 25, 2025), https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/rationing-during-wwii [https://perma.cc/P952-LJAT.
74
See Caroline Brobeil, Rutgers-Camden Researcher Finds Link Between Volatile Temperatures and Violence, Rutgers-Camden (Feb. 8, 2024), https://camden.rutgers.edu/news/how-weather-affects-crime-rates; United Nations, Five Ways the Climate Crisis Impacts Human Security, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security [https://perma.cc/5KXQ-TV8G].
75
Id.
76
See United Nations, Five Ways the Climate Crisis Impacts Human Security, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security [https://perma.cc/5KXQ-TV8G].
77
See Caroline Brobeil, Rutgers-Camden Researcher Finds Link Between Volatile Temperatures and Violence, Rutgers-Camden (Feb. 8, 2024), https://camden.rutgers.edu/news/how-weather-affects-crime-rates; United Nations, Five Ways the Climate Crisis Impacts Human Security, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security [https://perma.cc/5KXQ-TV8G].
78
United Nations, Five Ways the Climate Crisis Impacts Human Security, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security [https://perma.cc/5KXQ-TV8G].
79
Id.
80
See Ed Pilkington, ‘Panic Made us Vulnerable’: How 9/11 Made the US Surveillance State – and the Americans who Fought Back, The Guardian (Sept. 4, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/surveillance-state-september-11-panic-made-us-vulnerable[https://perma.cc/WUD5-HHQV].
81
See National Emergencies Act of 1976, 50 U.S.C. § 1601-51; Congressional Research Service, National Emergencies Act: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate 1 (2025).
82
See Supra Part II(B),(D).
83
Id. at Part II(B).
84
Id. at Part II(C).
85
Id.
86
Id. at Part II(C)-(D).
87
See generally Id. at Part II(D).
88
Id. at §II(B)-(C).
89
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund: CERCLA Overview, (Sept. 22, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview [https://perma.cc/M758-CTZQ].
90
The Effects of Climate Change, NASA, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/ [https://perma.cc/D2Z7-E22T] (last visited Apr. 15, 2026).