Youth climate lawsuits persist in U.S. courts despite Supreme Court rejection
A wave of children’s lawsuits using ancient legal principles continues to push governments to address climate change, even after a major setback at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alexandra Klass writes for The Conversation.
In short:
- Youth-led lawsuits leverage the “public trust doctrine,” asserting that governments must safeguard natural resources for current and future generations.
- Early broad-based efforts largely failed, but newer state-focused cases — like those in Montana and Hawaii — have yielded significant legal victories or settlements.
- Despite the Supreme Court’s March 2025 dismissal of the landmark Juliana v. United States case, legal actions remain active in states like Alaska and Utah.
Key quote:
“A stable climate system … is clearly within the object and true principles” of the state’s constitution.
— Montana Supreme Court
Why this matters:
The surge of youth climate litigation reflects growing frustration with political inaction on climate change and a creative turn to the courts for remedies. While the public trust doctrine began centuries ago as a way to protect waterways for communal use, today’s young plaintiffs are adapting it to argue that governments also have a duty to protect the climate. Their lawsuits underscore the vulnerability of children to the long-term impacts of environmental degradation, including rising temperatures, more extreme weather events, and threats to air and water quality. Victories in states like Montana and Hawaii signal a shift in judicial recognition of climate harms and government accountability, though success varies widely depending on local laws and courts. These cases not only advance legal theories but also capture public attention, pushing climate concerns into mainstream policy debates.
Learn more: Montana Republicans move to weaken environmental protections after youth climate lawsuit victory
