Youth-led Climate Litigation in the United States - Constitutional Opportunities and Constraints -

Youth-led climate litigation has expanded worldwide, with courts in various jurisdictions reframing environmental protection as a fundamental rights issue. Recent decisions internationally, along with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on states’ climate obligations, reflect a broader shift toward rights-based claims grounded on constitutional and human rights principles. In contrast, U.S. courts operate within a domestic constitutional framework that emphasizes standing, redressability, and separation of powers. This article asks how U.S. courts have interpreted and adapted constitutional principles in response to youth-led climate litigation. It examines the respective landmark federal and state cases, Juliana v. United States and Held v. State of Montana, specifically each court’s approach to plaintiffs’ standing (i.e., injury, causation, and redressability) and the political-question doctrine. The article then compares the cases in terms of the nature of the claims, constitutional basis of the claims, requested remedies and limits on judicial authority, as well as the implications for state and federal climate litigation. It concludes with a discussion on the legal opportunities and constraints facing young activists in seeking a constitutional right to a healthy environment in the United States.