In 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will deliver an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of nations with respect to the mounting damage caused by climate change. This ruling will definitively restate applicable international law, provide a basis for new global policy decisions within the U.N. General Assembly, and provide a predicate for new lawsuits in national courts. To be effective, remedies for breaching a government’s duties to avert climate change will require a “collective remedy,” not merely financial compensation. This ruling was sought by law students from the South Pacific and elsewhere; this Article, also by young legal scholars, evaluates the scope and estimates the content of the forthcoming ICJ opinion.

President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order No. 14008 created a new federal legal concept of “energy communities.” The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) further defined this term, with an emphasis on historical dependence on fossil energy industries. This Article summarizes and assesses current law for “energy communities” in the United States, with an emphasis on recent developments and early implementation efforts. Following a brief overview, it explains how this conception of “energy communities” overlaps with, but is distinct from, other closely related definitions of communities in need of socioeconomic supports or revitalization. It then assesses the complexity, challenges, and progress to date toward implementation of the newly defined concept. With the recent election, many speculate about the durability of the IIJA and the IRA, but it is noteworthy that “energy communities” and their need for economic revitalization have enjoyed bipartisan recognition.

What is climate litigation? Widely accepted definitions suggest it is any litigation pertaining directly or indirectly to climate change, which encompasses both strategic and routine litigation. Building on this framework, previous empirical assessments have found that climate litigation has not prompted a climate-oriented jurisprudence. However, empirical evidence suggests that strategic litigation—and not routine litigation—has contributed to development of a climate-oriented jurisprudence in jurisdictions across the globe. The different court receptiveness and variations in plaintiff behavior in strategic and routine litigation shed light on a distinctive framing for study: climate litigation as strategic litigation. While some commentators have criticized the disproportionate focus on “the tip of the iceberg,” this emphasis is perhaps better described as a deliberate choice rather than a failure to spot the entire iceberg.