Document Type

Article

Disciplines

Environmental Law | International Law

Abstract

In March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report and confirmed unequivocally that human activities are the cause of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions over the next few years are capable of causing irreversible and catastrophic damage to our planet. Catalyst litigation plays an important role in tackling climate change by prodding governments to assume a role in implementing adaptation and mitigation measures. Despite the extreme consequences that climate change will have on humanity, jurisdictional issues—such as standing—impose considerable hurdles for climate litigants. And these hurdles ultimately keep plaintiffs from obtaining a ruling, or even a discussion, on the merits of their case. With the power to take immediate action, judges in the United States must view their constitutional role differently—more expansively—to advance climate change policy. But it is not just up to judges alone. Climate plaintiffs can assist judges in realizing their expanded role. In order to overcome issues of standing and attain more judicial engagement in American climate litigation, plaintiffs should bring claims inspired by past cases, both American and international.

With a focus on Juliana v. United States, this Note argues that plaintiffs in climate change cases can overcome or avoid standing hurdles by employing important lessons from other cases. Part I provides a brief introduction to standing, as outlined in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. Part II meanders through the arguably random and unpredictable history of standing in United States climate litigation. Part III explores Juliana, a climate case that was struck down in the Ninth Circuit because the court believed the plaintiffs lacked standing. Part IV explores how judges in other countries—France and Germany—approach standing and react to plaintiffs’ demands in climate cases. Drawing from these national and international cases, Part V recommends how climate case plaintiffs, such as those in Juliana, should frame their complaints to circumvent standing issues.

Download

Share

COinS