Definition of “Standing”

Kids Take a Stand Against Climate Change,
but Do They Have “Standing”?

Twenty-one children are suing the federal government over its failure to address climate change. The basis of their case is that the government has not met its responsibility to protect the public’s fundamental right to a healthy environment.

Immediately we’re introduced to terms that sound perfectly clear, but which are all subject to interpretation, definition, categorization.

Young people across the United States have been asking courts to compel actions to address climate change. In the past, many federal and state courts have been reluctant to interfere in complex policy decisions that often raise concerns about causation, plaintiff standing, separation of powers, and the lack of clear legal authority.

(1) Causation, (2) Standing, (3) Separation of Powers, and (4) Legal Authority are members of the Category: Reasons the Court is Reluctant. Each one might require explanations to clarify how the terms are used in the argument.

In 2015, twenty-one kids between the ages of eight and nineteen asserted that the federal government’s failure to mitigate the known effects of climate change violates the public trust doctrine, which makes the government the trustee of national public resources, including the atmosphere, seas, shores, waters, and wildlife. In failing to do so, the government has been violating the public’s “inherent, inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights” to the environment.

The term “the public trust doctrine” doesn’t require 1000 words, but it does need to be described well enough to establish its meaning.

The young plaintiffs claim that the U.S. willfully ignores the dangers of climate change-causing policies. They claim that, because the government has continued to permit, authorize and subsidize fossil fuel extraction and consumption despite knowledge that those actions cause catastrophic global warming, it should be sued.

The author identifies three government activities in the “They Knew It Was Harmful” category: (1) permitting, (2) authorizing, and (3) subsidizing.

Defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries don’t establish “standing” and therefore are not entitled to bring the case to court.

We’re going to need a clear definition of “legal standing.”

In order to sue, plaintiffs must prove that (1) they have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and imminent; (2) the injury was caused by the defendant; and (3) the injury can be redressed by the court.

And there they are: the three items in the category: “Needed to Establish Standing.”

To prove the (1) requirement, they assert that climate change has directly harmed them and their property.

• Xiuhtezcatl, age fifteen, is of Aztec descent and claims that his sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices of honoring and protecting the Earth have been jeopardized by climate change. 
• Alex, age eighteen, lives on the plum and hazelnut farm that his family has tended for generations, but recently it has suffered from droughts and record high heat. 
• Zealand, age 16, claims that his allergies have gotten worse due to climate-induced heat waves and pollen count increases, forcing him to spend less time outdoors.
• Victoria, age 16, was affected when Hurricane Sandy caused her home to lose electricity and her school to close. 
• Other Plaintiffs claim that their asthma has exacerbated, that they can no longer swim in their local lagoon because of flesh-eating bacteria, and that they had to cancel camping trips because of nearby wildfires.

This case grapples with whether a phenomenon as diffuse and complex as global warming can meet these requirements. In other words, even if the plaintiffs demonstrate “standing,” can they prove (2) the injury was caused by the defendant; and (3) the injury can be redressed by the court.

In other words, does “global warming” belong to the category: “Actionable.”

To establish that they have brought their case to the right place, Plaintiffs have to prove that the government has “substantial, direct, and immediate interest” in protecting the environment and ensuring that their future environment is livable and safe. 

The list of characteristics (substantial, direct, and immediate) are categorical examples. What’s the Category?

Plaintiffs also assert that they “have suffered and will continue to suffer harm to their health, personal safety, bodily integrity, cultural and spiritual practices, economic stability, food security, property, and recreational interests.” 

Source after source on this matter makes claims that contain definition and categorical distinctions. For each one that can be defined broadly AND narrowly, the author has to clarify the “local meaning”; that is, the meaning of the term for the purposes of the paper.

In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to establish standing because they assert that (1) only generalized grievances instead of concrete and particularized injuries, (2) the alleged harms cannot be traced to particular government actions, and (3) the alleged harms cannot be redressed by the Court.

These are the three defenses by the government to answer the 3 categories needed to establish standing. Notice each of the three can be argued. 1) can be argued on Categorical grounds. 2) and 3) will be refuted by Causal arguments.

However, in an unprecedented 2016 decision, United States District Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that they had established Article III standing. Judge Aiken held that Plaintiffs . . .

(1) suffered an injury in fact because it does not matter if a large number of people suffer an injury, but rather that it is concrete and particularized. Additionally, Judge Aiken agreed that . . .

(2) the injury was imminent because Plaintiffs have already been affected by climate change Secondly, Judge Aiken held that, at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs established causation between the Government’s actions and Plaintiffs’ harm. Lastly, Judge Aiken held that,

(3) viewing the complaint in Plaintiffs’ favor at the Motion to Dismiss phase, Plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that their requested relief could redress their alleged injuries.

The judge grants “Standing” to the plaintiffs, and the case can proceed to trial. THAT’s how long justice takes. It took from 2015 until now to establish that the plaintiffs could even BRING the case, and THAT qualifies as a big legal victory for environmental advocates.

Your Response?

Reply below if this additional model of Definition/Categorical argument helps you understand the broad application of definition to making persuasive arguments.