Unlike criminal law, where the perpetrator is often easily identifiable, it is impossible to point to a single perpetrator when it comes to the climate crisis. Rising sea levels are engulfing entire islands, homes are being levelled by extreme weather, and droughts are leaving populations in famine—yet such devastation cannot be attributed to a single person, or even to a single country. Climate change is an international problem rife with geopolitical tensions. Thus, victims of climate injury seeking redress face significant obstacles in amending these claims through the American legal system, a single jurisdiction out of countless implicated regions. While it wasn’t without its victories, the Ninth Circuit’s divided 2020 ruling in Juliana v. United States reinforced stringent federal standing requirements, effectively barring climate redress cases from succeeding in federal court for the foreseeable future. However, the success of state-level cases like Held v. Montana in establishing standing suggests a path forward for climate advocates, who may find considerable success bringing cases to state courts with environmental rights enshrined in their constitutions.

Read More