U.S. constitutional doctrine has created ambiguity surrounding the nation’s capacity to implement climate action domestically. The legal instability caused by the executive branch’s ability to join or withdraw from international agreements unilaterally undermines long-term climate accountability in the court of international opinion. Specifically, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump, followed by reentry under President Biden, and a subsequent withdrawal from the current administration, proves the volatility of the U.S.’s approach to entering the commitment. Despite federal ambivalence, multiple states have pursued campaigns to champion Paris commitments from the ground up. These pursuits are by no means exempt from scrutiny. In response to a U.S.-filed lawsuit in 2020 over California’s cap-and-trade carbon reduction plan, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark released the following: "The state of California has veered outside of its proper constitutional lane to enter into an international emissions agreement…The power to enter into such agreements is reserved to the federal government, which must be able to speak with one voice in the area of U.S. foreign policy.” [4] Despite federal actors under the Trump administration vehemently countering efforts by states to develop cross-border climate policies, this comment will argue that non-federal actors in the United States possess the legal autonomy to engage in the Paris Climate Agreement through subnational diplomacy, presenting a viable and often preferable alternative to federal action.

Read More