A Planet Worth Fighting For: Perils, Promise, and Partnerships in Uncertain Times

UConn Law’s Annual Earth Day Conference 2025 asked the question, “What is the future of environmental policy in a changing legal environment?” An array of legal, scientific, and policy experts discussed the future of climate science, federal and state policy, and, of course, the law. Where do we go from here on a planet worth fighting for?

The conference convened policymakers, regulators, scientists, scholars, and activists across disciplines, states, and nations to chart our course forward. The panels analyzed obstacles and emphasized opportunities for action and optimism in the coming years. The Conference featured a multi-media exhibit where students, artists, and other members of the community shared pieces that inspire them to action.

Welcome and Opening Remarks were done by Dean Eboni Nelson, Professor Joseph MacDougald and Brynn Furey.

Panel #1: Climate Change and Gun Policy: Hard Problems & the Law After Loper Bright. The experts on this panel tackled how climate change and gun policy represent two of the hardest problems that agencies and experts face and how recent Supreme Court cases, from Loper Bright to Cargill, have created doubt about the utility of agencies in dealing with challenging issues. Speakers included Jennifer Dineen, Michael Fitzpatrick, Josh Galperin, Douglas Letter, and Tanya Schardt. The moderator was Professor Joseph MacDougald.

Panel #2: International Environmental Policy in a Time of Political Change. This panel analyzed obstacles and opportunities for the United States to support international environmental policy. Speakers looked beyond the Paris Climate Agreement and explored ways we can stay involved in environmental policy across nations. Speakers included David Azoulay, Stacy VanDeveer, and Delta Merner. The moderator was Paschaline Poku.

Panel #3: State Responses to a Changing Federal Landscape. The final panel charted obstacles and opportunities at the state level, looking for a path forward. Speakers discussed policymaker and activist work in Connecticut and beyond. Speakers included Denise Stranko and Ethan Elkind. The moderator was Denise Stranko.

There were three keynote speakers for this event. First was Robert Percival, a leading scholar and professor in environmental law. He delivered his address entitled “Checks Without Balance: Can Environmental Law Survive the Trump Administration? Percival offered his perspective on the current moment in environmental policy, highlighted where we have been and shared a vision for the future. Second was Delta Merner, a lead scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She provided an update on current climate science and shared how this science affects policy and the law. She offered attendees a scientific and technical understanding of where we are and where we are headed. Lastly was Katie Dykes, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. She shared her perspective on Connecticut policy and regulation in a changing legal environment.

American Constitutional Law: What Should Be National and What Should Be Local?

We were honored to have hosted Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as our Jurist-in-Residence. The author of several books on state constitutional law, he spoke on a topic of overriding importance today: What should be national and what should be local in a time of uncertainty?

One question dominates every other in American history: What should be national and what should be local? Over the last 100 years or so, we have tended to favor national answers over local ones when it comes to American constitutional law. Often with good reasons: dealing with the imperatives of the Great Depression; bringing Jim Crow to heel; addressing policy challenges that have emerged from an increasingly national and global economy. Even as we recall the reasons not to forget these chapters in American history and even as we contend with chapters still unfolding, we wonder whether, halfway through our third century, we should pay more attention to the localism side of federalism and be more patient when it comes to the nationalism side of federalism. In debates about American constitutional law, there are many ways in which our fifty state constitutions and fifty state courts have critical roles to play, all true before Dobbs, all true after it, all with the potential to alleviate pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court as the perceived sole arbiter of American constitutional values.

JEFFREY S. SUTTON is the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He has served as Chair of the Federal Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, and Chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission. He currently serves as Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Since 1993, Chief Judge Sutton has been an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University College of Law, where he teaches seminars on State Constitutional Law, the United States Supreme Court, and Appellate Advocacy. He also teaches a class on State Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. Among other publications, he is the author of Who Decides? States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation and 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law. He is the co-author of a casebook, State Constitutional Law: The Modern Experience, as well as The Law of Judicial Precedent. He is also the co-editor of The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law. In 2006, Chief Judge Sutton was elected to the American Law Institute, and in 2017 he was elected to its Council.

In recent weeks, the Executive has directly threatened, attacked and penalized lawyers and law firms. The Administration has fired Department of Justice prosecutors who previously investigated the President or will not act in accordance with the Executive’s goals. The Administration has stripped some law firms of their security clearances, banned them from federal buildings, and threatened lawyers who litigate against the government. This Roundtable discussed these current developments, the implications of the Administration’s actions for the legal profession, and the legal profession’s responses to these actions.

Speakers included:
David Atkins, Visiting lecturer, Yale Law School
Professor Emeritus Paul Chill, UConn School of Law
Professor Leslie Levin, UConn School of Law
Thomas J. Murphy, Cowdery, Murphy & Healy
Professor Richard Wilson, UConn School of Law

Carlos Alvarado Quesada, former President of Costa Rica and current Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy joined UConn Law for a discussion on Democracy, Human Rights, and Multilateralism in a Changing World. Quesada’s 2018-2022 term was a time of political polarization in Costa Rica, and he focused on issues such as moving away from the use of fossil fuels and establishing the right to same-sex marriage. 
Quesada said he often hears young people expressing feelings of uncertainty and anxiety about our ever-changing world
and shared three main elements that he finds important to making change. The first is attitude and being prepared to confront challenges. The second is character and the ability to confront your own fear – Quesada shared the quote, “a calm sea will not make a good sailor.” The last is leadership. Quesada explained that we need leadership most when we do not know exactly what to do. 
Quesada shared that Despite concerns shared across the globe, Quesada is hopeful for the future. That hope comes from the fact that when he was elected to the presidency, Costa Rica was highly polarized, yet since 2018 much progressive change has been made.
In 2019, Carlos Alvarado Quesada was named one of Times Magazine’s 100 Next Emerging Leaders. In 2020, he was given the Champion of the Earth Award, for individuals whose actions have had a transformative impact on the environment. Currently, he is a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, where he teaches courses on diplomacy.

Judicial Ethics, the Supreme Court, and the Rule of Law

Dean Eboni S. Nelson, the Connecticut Law Review, UConn School of Law, and Day Pitney LLP were pleased to present the 2025 Day Pitney Visiting Scholar Program.

Through the contributions and volunteer efforts of Day Pitney personnel, the Day Pitney Visiting Scholar program promotes positive developments in the law, legal scholarship, and legal and community education. The 2025 Program honored Distinguished Professor Charles Geyh, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and his scholarly contributions to the study of judicial conduct and ethics. Professor Geyh spoke on the current Supreme Court, judicial ethics, and the future of the rule of law.

Professor Geyh’s scholarship has appeared in over 100 books, articles, book chapters, reports, and other publications. He is the author of Who Is to Judge? The Perennial Debate Over Whether to Elect or Appoint America’s Judges (Oxford University Press 2019); Courting Peril: The Political Transformation of the American Judiciary (Oxford University Press, 2015); When Courts and Congress Collide: The Struggle for Control of America’s Judicial System (University of Michigan Press 2006); and Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law (3d ed. Federal Judicial Center 2020). In addition, he is coauthor of Judicial Conduct and Ethics (6th ed., Lexis Law Publishing 2020) (with Alfini, Lubet and Shaman); andUnderstanding Civil Procedure (6th ed. 2019) (with Shreve and Raven-Hansen); and editor of What’s Law Got to Do With it? What Judges Do, Why They Do It, and What’s at Stake (Stanford University Press 2011).

Professor Geyh has served as an expert witness in the Senate impeachment trial of Federal District Judge G. Thomas Porteous; director of and consultant to the ABA Judicial Disqualification Project, and as reporter to four ABA commissions (the Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, the Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary, the Commission on the Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns, and the Commission on the Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence). He has likewise served as director of the American Judicature Society’s Center for Judicial Independence; consultant to the Parliamentary Development Project on Judicial Independence and Administration for the Supreme Rada of Ukraine; assistant special counsel to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on the impeachment and removal of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen; consultant to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal; and legislative liaison to the Federal Courts Study Committee.

Legal Issues Arising from the President’s Executive Orders
This Law School Roundtable featured Professors Jon Bauer, Anya Bernstein, Kiel Brennan-Marquez, and Susan Schmeiser who lead a discussion with the Law School community about some of the most important legal issues surrounding President Trump’s executive orders during his first few weeks in office. Associate Dean Anne Dailey moderated the discussion.