Over the last three decades, numerous studies have concluded that African American, Hispanic, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and working-class White communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. More recent studies have concluded that although the adverse effects of climate change are being felt throughout the United States, they are not evenly distributed. This Article explores how several states have initiated climate justice litigation to address this issue. Specifically, it examines how Rhode Island, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia have filed state-law claims against fossil fuel companies, asking state courts to consider liability, compensation, and remedies for harms related to climate change. It concludes that tribes, acting as sovereigns, may also want to consider climate justice litigation.

On October 7, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the most far-reaching corporate climate disclosure (CCD) requirements in the United States. This so-called California Climate Accountability Package consists of the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (Senate Bill (SB) 253), which requires certain companies to disclose greenhouse gas emission data, and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), which requires certain companies to disclose climate-related financial risks. This Comment provides background information on SB 253 and SB 261, discusses the inadequate CCD regime in the United States, and explains the benefits of state CCD mandates for both increasing corporate transparency and enhancing climate policy. It also analyzes SB 253 and SB 261 under modern First Amendment doctrine, and argues that these laws should not be invalidated on First Amendment grounds. It further contends that even if they are struck down, SB 253 and SB 261 may nevertheless succeed in increasing CCDs.