Withstanding Standing Scrutiny: How Climate Litigation Can Survive Juliana’s Federal Beatdown

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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3]

It may be easier to prove standing in a state court than in a federal court. For a court to have jurisdiction over a case, the plaintiff must prove that they have a personal stake in the case—in other words, they must demonstrate standing. [4] Standing requirements differ at the federal and state levels. In federal court, cases must pass the three-pronged test, derived from Article III of the Constitution, to establish standing. [5] First, the cases must concern concrete injury that, if not yet actualized, is at least imminent. Second, responsibility for the injury must be reasonably traced to the defendant. Lastly, it must be likely that, if granted, the demands for relief will redress the injury in question. [6] Federal courts only have jurisdiction over cases that satisfy these three prongs. On the other hand, state courts abide by the standing requirements outlined in their respective statutes. While these guidelines are often similar to federal requirements in that they also mandate proof of injury, state courts are not bound to Article III like federal courts are. [7] State courts may have more lenient standing requirements, allowing plaintiffs to pursue cases at the state level that a federal court may otherwise turn away. 

In the landmark climate case Juliana v. United States, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, consequently removing federal courts from considering climate injury cases. In 2015, 21 young plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. They alleged that, by adopting policies that accelerated carbon emissions, the federal government had violated the public trust doctrine as well as the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, and property. The plaintiffs asked the Court to declare the U.S. government’s actions unconstitutional and to issue an injunction mandating that the government cease fossil fuel use and prepare an emission reduction plan. In January 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed their case on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing by falling short of the redressability requirement. [8] In his decision, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz writes that the Court reluctantly concluded “that such relief is beyond [its] constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.” [9] Demonstrating Article III redressability requires that plaintiffs prove that the relief sought is first, likely to remedy the injury suffered; and second, within the court’s power to award. [10] The Court was “skeptical” of whether the first condition was met, for “reducing the global consequences of climate change demands much more than cessation of the government’s promotion of fossil fuels.” [11] In short, the Court observed that the relief sought would hardly remedy the plaintiffs’ injuries because the U.S. government is not the only contributor to the damage in question. Unfortunately, this is not a case-specific issue. The nature of climate change is such that a single perpetrator does not exist; thus, a single court ruling will never provide full redress for what is a global problem. Dismissing Juliana based on this fact alone would have had grave implications for the potential of climate litigation. However, the Ninth Circuit, albeit with a raised eyebrow, refrained from a categorical denial of the first redressability condition, instead referring to the second redressability condition. Judge Hurwitz writes that “it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan,” since “any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.” [12] Invoking the separation of powers doctrine, Judge Hurwitz determined that Juliana falls outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts, since the demands for relief require political expertise that a court of law is unequipped to supervise. With his decision, Judge Hurwitz effectively barred the Ninth Circuit from ordering the U.S. government to develop emission reduction plans, weakening a common demand for relief.

It is important to note that the plaintiffs did not fail for lack of injury-related evidence. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the Juliana plaintiffs satisfied the other two requirements for standing—in other words, they successfully demonstrated a concrete injury sustained by the federal government’s actions. [13] Judge Hurwitz affirms that “at least some of the plaintiffs have presented evidence that climate change is affecting them now in concrete ways and will continue to do so unless checked.” [14] This is no insignificant feat. In 2019, the Pennsylvania Federal Court dismissed similar claims made against the federal government in Clean Air Council v. United States, ruling that while the alleged climate-related injuries were concrete, they weren’t actualized, nor imminent, nor could they be attributed to the state policies in question. [15] While the Ninth Circuit’s decision does not necessarily override those of the Pennsylvania Federal Court, it adds a critical dissenting voice to an opinion that would otherwise push climate law farther into the margins. Yet the point remains that the Juliana ruling established a rather high barrier to entry for people seeking legal remedies for climate-related injuries, at least in federal court.

Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision dealt a significant blow to the future of climate litigation, cases like Held v. Montana and Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation exist as evidence that climate litigation may still survive in some state courts. In 2020, 16 youth brought the state of Montana before the Montana Trial Court for violating their rights to “a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations” as protected by the Montana State Constitution. [16] The violations in question were a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that “forbids the State and its agents from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or climate change in their environmental reviews.” [17] While the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs standing on the basis that issuing an injunction would be beyond the court’s powers, a 2023 decision delivered by the Montana Trial Court and reinforced in 2024 by the Montana Supreme Court not only granted plaintiffs standing, but also issued an injunction ordering the Montana government to develop a plan to reduce its GHG emissions. [18] Justice Mike McGrath of the Montana Supreme Court outright rejected challenges that the plaintiffs lacked standing, affirming their fulfillment of the injury, causation, and, most notably, redressability conditions. [19] Acknowledging that “the MEPA Limitation is only a small contributor to climate change generally, and that declaring it unconstitutional will do little to reverse climate change,” Judge Mike McGrath maintained that the question before the court is “not on redressing climate change, but on redressing [the plaintiffs’] constitutional injuries.” [20] Whereas the Ninth Circuit remained “skeptical” of whether a court-ordered injunction that only binds a single entity would remedy climate injuries, the Montana Supreme Court took a firm affirmative stance, equating climate injury with a violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Further, the second prong of the Article III redressability requirement, upon which the Ninth Circuit grounded its dismissal, is absent from Montana courts. The redressability condition for standing in Montana courts simply requires that “the harm is of a type that legal relief can effectively alleviate, remedy, or prevent,” omitting the explicit mandate that such relief must be within the court’s power to award. [21] Arguing in state court, plaintiffs in Held were not subject to the same stringent federal standing requirements that Juliana plaintiffs were.

An amicus brief filed by six former Montana Supreme Court justices in 2024 explicitly pushed back against the notion that policy matters have no place in court. [22] In response to state defendants’ claims that “the judiciary has no authority to weigh in on issues of policy” based on the separation of powers doctrine, the brief observes that “repeated attempts have been made to abridge long-settled elements of the judicial power.” [23] While conceding that “[c]ertain policy decisions are entrusted to the legislative and executive branches,” the former justices wrote that “whether those policy decisions… violate the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution, [is] clearly within the powers held exclusively by the judicial branch.” [24] Their brief directly opposes the line of reasoning invoked by the Ninth Circuit in dismissing Juliana.

In addition to Held v. Montana, Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation is another example of a state-level case that affirmed plaintiffs’ standing. In 2022, 14 young plaintiffs sued the Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation for operating Hawaiʻi’s transportation system in a way that infringed on their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment. [25] In a 2023 ruling, the Hawai‘i Trial Court countered defendants’ arguments that “claims in this case amount to a political question, and the courts cannot or should not get involved” with the observation that “the two claims in this case are both based on the Hawai‘i Constitution” and “[t]he courts unequivocally have an important and long-recognized role in interpreting and defending constitutional guarantees.” [26] Held and Navahine, two successful climate cases, were both argued in states with environmental rights enshrined in their constitutions. In these states, climate change-related injuries could be interpreted as a violation of constitutional rights, compelling judges to deem such cases within their jurisdictions. In Held, Justice Mike McGrath of the Montana Supreme Court rephrased the question before the court as “whether the MEPA Limitation unconstitutionally infringes on Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment.” [27] The same idea was argued in the amicus brief filed by the former Montana justices. This association between constitutional environmental rights and successfully argued climate cases is not arbitrary. In 2018, Judge Michael Scott of the Washington State Court dismissed Aji P. v. State of Washington for its lack of standing, reaching a similar conclusion as Judge Horowitz of the Ninth Circuit. [28] Judge Scott wrote that the case raised “quintessentially political questions that must be addressed by the legislative and executive branches of government” and that “cannot appropriately be resolved by a court.” [29] Unsurprisingly, the Washington state constitution does not protect the right to a clean and healthful environment.

In states without environmental provisions in their constitutions, climate injury is not a violation of constitutional rights, making claims to standing more dubious and increasing the chances of a dismissal. Further, the right to a clean environment is not a federal constitutional right. Thus, rather than bringing cases to federal courts, climate lawyers may find more success pursuing cases in state courts, particularly in states with environmental rights enshrined in their state constitutions. In addition to Montana and Hawai‘i, this list includes Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. [30] Climate-conscious legislators in the other forty-four states should also urge the passage of constitutional amendments in their respective states, such that the range of climate litigation can grow.

Of course, limiting climate litigation to certain state courts, in this case six, significantly reduces the breadth of impact that a legal victory would have. State courts only have jurisdiction over their respective states, while decisions coming out of federal courts have the power to regulate the federal government. In the grand and global scheme of climate change, reducing the emissions of a single state may only have a minuscule, if not virtually insignificant, impact on the hastening climate crisis. If Judge Horowitz decided that limiting the federal government’s emissions was not enough to remedy climate change, one can only imagine what he would say of limiting Montana’s emissions. Montana’s carbon emissions account for only 0.6% of nationwide emissions and 0.08% of global emissions. [31] However, invoking the words of the Montana Supreme Court: “This is akin to the old ad populum fallacy: 'If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?’” [32] The perpetuation of harm by others does not compel us to follow suit. Even as other states jump off the bridge, Montana can keep its feet planted firmly on the ground. Besides philosophical musings, the Held decision has also had a massive impact on the landscape of climate litigation, marking the first successful attempt to get a U.S. court to recognize a constitutional right to a healthful environment. [33] The Held case has become a household name in climate law, inspiring the emergence of similar cases across the nation. [34]

At the same time, however, legal analyses of climate cases should be taken with a grain of salt. Although the number of climate cases is increasing globally, precedent for climate litigation remains too sparse to outline a comprehensive legal strategy. [35] The role of the courts and the extent of their jurisdiction in climate-related cases is still heavily disputed and highly subject to change. Facing a relatively modern, yet rapidly accelerating, problem, we are standing at a pivotal moment in climate law. Taking lessons from cases like Juliana and Held, climate lawyers have no choice but to take it upon themselves to establish the positive precedent that climate litigation so sorely needs.

Edited by Begum Gokmen

[1] Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “NASA Analysis Shows Irreversible Sea Level Rise for Pacific Islands,” NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), September 25, 2024, https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-analysis-shows-irreversible-sea-level-rise-for-pacific-islands/; Hillary Andrews, “Nearly Half of US Homes at Severe or Extreme ‘Climate Risk,’ Report Says,” Fox Weather, March 31, 2024, https://www.foxweather.com/lifestyle/half-homes-at-severe-extreme-climate-risk; Fiona Harvey, “Droughts Worldwide Pushing Tens of Millions towards Starvation, Says Report,” Guardian, July 2, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/02/droughts-worldwide-pushing-tens-millions-starvation-report.

[2] Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020). 

[3] Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023); Navahine v. Dept. of Transportation, No. CCV-22-0000631 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1st Cir. No. 1. Jan. 26, 2024).

[4] LII, “Standing,” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing. 

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Alicia Bannon, “A Primer on Standing in State Courts,” State Court Report, August 22, 2024, https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/primer-standing-state-courts. 

[8] “Juliana v. United States,” Climate Change Litigation, February 23, 2016, https://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/. 

[9] Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1169.

[10] Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1179.

[11] Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1183.

[12] Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1183.

[13] “Juliana v. United States,” Climate Change Litigation, February 23, 2016, https://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/.

[14] Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1176.

[15] Clean Air Council v. United States Steel Corp., 4 F.4th 204 (3d Cir. 2021).

[16] Mont. Const. art. II, § 3.

[17] Held, No. CDV-2020-307 at 2.

[18] Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023); Held v. State, 415 P.3d 479 (Mont. 2023).

[19] “Held v. State,” Climate Change Litigation, April 6, 2020, https://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/. 

[20] Held, 415 P.3d at 511.

[21] Held, 415 P.3d at 498.

[22] Brief for Former Montana Supreme Court Justices Terry N. Trieweiler, James C. Nelson, William Leaphart, James M. Regnier, Patricia O. Cotter, Michael Wheat as Amicus Curiae, Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023). 

[23] Ibid at 2.

[24] Ibid at 3.

[25] “Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation,” Climate Change Litigation, June 5, 2022, https://climatecasechart.com/case/navahine-f-v-hawaii-department-of-transportation/. 

[26] Navahine, No. CCV-22-0000631 at 11.

[27] Held, 415 P.3d at 511.

[28] Aji P. v. State, 480 P.3d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

[29] “Aji P. v. State of Washington,” Climate Change Litigation, March 5, 2018, https://climatecasechart.com/case/aji-p-v-state-washington/. 

[30] Matthew Grabianski, “What Held v. Montana Immediately Offers for Constitutional Environmental Rights,” Georgetown Law, November 16, 2023, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/blog/what-held-v-montana-immediately-offers-for-constitutional-environmental-rights/#_ftn11.

[31] Grabianski, “What Held v. Montana Immediately Offers for Constitutional Environmental Rights;” “United States - Countries & Regions,” IEA, https://www.iea.org/countries/united-states. 

[32] Held, 415 P.3d at 510.

[33] Karen Zraick, “Youth Climate Activists Get Major Win in Montana Supreme Court,” New York Times, December 18, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/climate/held-montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html. 

[34] David Brown, “Montana’s Climate Change Lawsuit May See Sequels Across America,” State Court Report, July 9, 2024, https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/montanas-climate-change-lawsuit-may-see-sequels-across-america. 

[35] “Climate Litigation Increasingly Reaching the Highest Courts around the World, Report Finds,” Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, June 24, 2025, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/climate-litigation-more-often-reaching-the-highest-courts-around-the-world-report-finds/.