Can states hold pesticide companies accountable — or does federal law preempt? In this episode of People, Places, Planet, host Sebastian Duque Rios sits down with Patti Goldman, Senior Attorney at Earthjustice, and Cecilia Diedrich, Staff Attorney at ELI, to unpack one of the most consequential environmental law cases of the Supreme Court's current session: Monsanto v. Darnell.

At its core, this case asks whether federal pesticide law — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims, potentially shielding pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto from liability for harms caused by products like Roundup (glyphosate). With oral arguments scheduled for April 27, 2026, the stakes couldn't be higher — not just for pesticide litigation, but for the future of toxics accountability across the board.

We break down the science behind pesticide risks, the role of tort litigation in driving corporate accountability and regulatory reform, and why the Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for PFAS litigation, microplastics liability, and chemical safety regulation more broadly. We also explore how recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright, are reshaping the landscape of federal agency deference and what that means for environmental and public health protections.

If you're interested in learning about toxics litigation more broadly, ELI’s Toxics Litigation Project recently published a landscape analysis of toxics litigation and how scientific advancement and uncertainty, state and federal law, and judicial doctrine intersect in the ongoing effort to address the risks and consequences of toxic exposures in the United States and abroad titled, "Current Trends in Toxics Litigation." Additionally, for more information on FIFRA, check out our FIFRA, Explained episode.

• Introduction: Pesticides & FIFRA (3:17)
• Role of Tort Litigation in Accountability (13:44)
• The Roundup Litigation: Failure to Warn, Glyphosate, and the Road to the Supreme Court (19:07)
• Monsanto v. Durnell: Preemption and the Circuit Split (25:13)
• Beyond Roundup: Implications for the Future of Toxics Litigation (40:15)
• Concluding Thoughts: Science, Oral Arguments, and How to Protect Communities Going Forward (48:55)

What does a truly just energy transition look like — and who gets to define it? In this episode of People, Places, Planet, host Sebastian Duque Rios sits down with Nadia Ahmad (Barry University School of Law) and Danielle Stokes (University of Richmond School of Law), collaborators on the Just Energy Transitions and Place (JET Place) project, a multi-institutional research initiative examining how place, land use law, and community governance shape who bears the burdens and who captures the benefits of America's shift to clean energy. Drawing on fieldwork across Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, and Pennsylvania, they make the case that decarbonization without redistribution isn't a just transition at all.

From federalism and zoning conflicts to power purchase agreements, IRA rollbacks, and the structural barriers facing marginalized communities, this conversation surfaces the deeply human stakes behind every permitting decision and planning process — and explores what it looks like when communities successfully reclaim agency in the energy future being built around them.

The conversation also zeroes in on Florida as a potentially cautionary case: a state with extraordinary solar potential but a regulatory environment defined by vertically integrated utilities, restricted third-party PPAs, and legislation that threatens to ban net zero targets at every level of government.

• What "Just Energy Transition" Really Means: Decarbonization and Distribution (4:50)
• Navigating the Regulatory Landscape: Federal, State, and Local Authority (8:10)
• Just Energy Transitions and Place (21:39)
• Why Place-Centered Energy Planning Is Essential to Energy Justice (27:12)
• Florida: A Placed-based Case Study of Energy Governance Challenges (41:38)
• Concluding Thoughts: Policy Instability, IRA Rollbacks, and Reasons for Hope (50:07)

What does equity look like in ocean governance? In this episode of People, Places, Planet, host Sebastian Duque Rios speaks with Yoshitaka Ota of Ocean Nexus and Randall Abate, ELI Visiting Scholar, about the emerging concept of ocean equity—and why centering social justice is essential to the future of marine conservation and ocean law.

From marine protected areas and small-scale fisheries to deep sea mining, marine geoengineering, and the rights of nature movement, the conversation explores how traditional environmental governance frameworks have often failed to address systemic marginalization in coastal and Indigenous communities. Drawing on anti-subordination theory, environmental justice, and human rights law, the guests explain how ocean equity moves beyond consultation toward meaningful power-sharing—including rethinking free, prior, and informed consent, stewardship-based resource management, and the intersection of human rights and marine conservation. For environmental lawyers, policymakers, and ocean governance professionals, this episode offers a forward-looking framework for aligning conservation, climate action, and justice.

• What is ocean equity? (04:08)
• From EJ to anti-subordination (09:37)
• Consent, power, and meaningful participation (16:05)
• Stewardship and MPAs (21:56)
• Rights of nature and the human right to a healthy environment (29:54)
• Emerging governance challenges and the future of ocean law (33:37)