Analysis Of Kelsey Et Al. V. US Government Climate Infringement Case

In today's global warming,climate change infringement litigation is constantly being brought up,one of the more typical cases is: a group of teenagers in the United States accused the Obama administration of failing to deal with environmental problems,and climate change caused by inaction has seriously affected their rights and those of future generations.The central controversy in the case was whether the plaintiff was eligible for prosecution,whether the claims made related to non-censored political issues,whether the defendant's omission was contrary to substantive due process and whether the claim for unconstitutionality based on the doctrine of public trust was established.In that case,the plaintiff's eligibility rules were further loosened:for some kind of damage,even if it is universal,there is a specific damage suffered by the individual,which also satisfies the element of "actual damage";Proof of causation,the plaintiff's burden of proof is limited to proof of general factual injury;In the case of the Urgenda Foundation v.the Netherlands,the approval of a valid judgement can limit such damage to a certain extent.In that case,the non-trial interpretation of political issues was that the parties claimed violations of individual rights and that the proceedings did not involve political issues;and the court recognized that federal government agencies were not in breach of substantive due process rights in fulfilling their obligations to administer environmental pollution;and that the plaintiff's claim under the principle of public trust was supported.Under the concrete analysis of this case,the handling of climate change infringement litigation in the United States has some reference for our country to deal with environmental public interest litigation,for example,to improve the qualifications of plaintiffs in domestic environmental public interest litigation,appropriately relax the legal qualifications of social organizations.Increase the individual qualifications of individual citizens and the appropriateness of the scope of environmental public interest litigation.