Communities around the world are seeking to acknowledge nature’s rights through legal tools and litigation. This Article provides an overview of recent developments in earth law movements, including Rights of Nature, Rights of Rivers, and Ocean Rights, and considers the potential impacts these ecocentric conservation measures could have on Indigenous peoples and local communities.

More severe storm surges and rising sea levels along the coast of the United States pose a threat to coastal communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems.

On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped an absolute bombshell with its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Early assessments of Sackett underscore two vital points: much has been lost for wetlands protection, and much has changed with respect to the Court’s broader environmental law jurisprudence. This Comment delves into both of these issues, providing some background on the unique and long-running controversy that was at the heart of Sackett, and parsing the four opinions from the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s May ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency sharply limited the scope of the federal Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s) protection for the nation’s waters. The Court redefined the Act’s coverage of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), effectively removing protection from many wetlands that have been covered under the Act for almost a half century. On June 8, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts that analyzed the consequences of Sackett and discussed what actions can be taken to protect non-WOTUS waters.

This abstract is adapted from Albert C. Lin, Making Net Zero Matter, 79 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 679 (2022), and used with permission.

This abstract is adapted from Cass R. Sunstein, Arbitrariness Review and Climate Change, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 991 (2022), and used with permission.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig effectively argue that governance measures, particularly adaptation planning, will fall short if institutions fail to embrace the real possibility that the planet will blow well past 2° Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial temperatures. Further, they argue that 4°C is a better target for adaptation planning because this metric better captures the future risk the nation faces. Ruhl and Craig are keenly aware that serious talk of a possible 4°C future will almost certainly trigger accusations of “doomism” from various critics.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig acknowledge that the Earth’s climate is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. Realistically, achieving the goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5°C will be almost unattainable without drastic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Accelerating ice loss and expanding wildfire zones are potential markers of what are known as tipping points—thresholds along a nonlinear pattern of system change that accelerate the pace of change. Scientists are concerned that our global climate system is dangerously close to passing these points. This trend has significant implications for governance and law. Climate change disruptions will extend beyond biophysical systems to social systems, including systems of governance.

This Article, adapted from the Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum, examines the status and viability of judicial remedies in climate change litigation. It focuses on climate cases that are seeking science-based remedies specifically related to climate mitigation (actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or draw down atmospheric carbon) and climate-change adaptation (actions to reduce the negative impacts of climate disruption on human and natural communities).