One of the key hurdles in environmental litigation is whether the plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit. Standing refers to the legal requirement that only parties with a real interest in the dispute can initiate a lawsuit regarding that matter. Environmental suits may cover a wide range of grievances, from local to international environmental conditions, and can be brought by a variety of plaintiffs, including individuals and organizations. But in all cases, a claimant that brings an environmental lawsuit must demonstrate that he has constitutional standing to pursue the matter in the court system.
Standard for legal standing. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the criteria for standing in environmental matters in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. Accordingly, a plaintiff must evidence that an injury-in-fact has occurred. The injury must be actual, rather than hypothetical, and must affect the plaintiff personally. The second condition is that the claimant must establish causality between the harm and the conduct of the defendant. Last, the injury that the claimant has suffered must be of the nature that a favorable verdict would be capable of redressing. In denying the plaintiff’s claim in Lujan, the Court established a fairly rigorous test for standing in environmental litigation. Shortly thereafter, this standard was eased by the Court in a subsequent decision that applied greater flexibility to the requirement that the plaintiff show an injury-in-fact.
Violations of greenhouse gas emissions. The Court’s wavering stance on how rigorously these requirements should be applied is particularly relevant in cases dealing with violations of environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act. In cases asserting claims based on activities resulting in the emission of greenhouse gases, the element of injury can be tenuous. Plaintiffs could encounter difficulty establishing that an actual injury has resulted from greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2007, the Supreme Court was squarely faced with the issue of standing in a global warming case. The Court found that the claimant, the State of Massachusetts, exhibited the element of harm by presenting evidence that international sea levels have overcome the state’s coastline and will continue to do so if sea levels grow as expected. The Court specifically found that the injury to the state was “actual” and “imminent.” In addition, the Court found that restrictions on greenhouse gases from motor vehicles would reduce greenhouse gases in the environment, thereby establishing causation. Last, the Court determined that laws regulating these emissions would affect global warming, and therefore mitigate the harm to the state of Massachusetts. The recognition of the injury caused by greenhouse gas emissions and its resulting impact on the claimant makes way for the development of a new standard for determining standing in environmental cases.
Contact Shane Coons at 949-333-0900 or visit his website at www.ShaneCoonsLaw.com to find out more about his practice.