Olivia Venus
92 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 949
As the impacts of climate change come to fruition, plaintiffs battle strict standing requirements to litigate climate harms. Federal courts impose increasingly strict definitions of injury in fact while Congress continually fails to present a comprehensive climate plan, leaving plaintiffs without a remedy. The Supreme Court recently made standing even more difficult in its decision TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, where it narrowed the definition of concrete injury. This Note examines the impact of TransUnion’s holding on climate plaintiffs and proposes three ways the case should be read narrowly to protect climate change standing. It argues that TransUnion’s standing test should be applied only to Fair Credit Reporting Act cases, to cases for damages, or to suits against private entities. By applying a narrow reading, federal courts may protect the ability of climate plaintiffs to assert an injury in fact and help stop climate change in its tracks.
