Environmental litigation in the United States is restricted and burdened by narrow, privatized rules of standing and infexible remedies. This Note lays out an argument for environmental litigation in the United States to permit relaxed standing requirements and fexible remedies like the Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) system in India, focusing primarily on how the constitutional concept of locus standi or standing should be broadened.
First, this Note lays out the context of how the PIL system functions and then explains the way PILs have been used in environmental jurisprudence through petitions to the Indian Supreme Court. After exhibiting the widespread impact PILs had on curbing environmental law and human rights violations, I use the idea of “reverse transplantation” to argue that such an adapted version of standing, adapted to the United States’ constitutional context, should be used in environmental litigation in the United States. The Note highlights the need for accessible and urgent environmental litigation and explains how the prevailing privatized notion of standing in the United States hinders the goals of environmental protection. Briefy, the Note then addresses some legal realist concerns about broadening standing rules. I conclude that standing requirements should be explicitly and specifcally relaxed for environmental litigation in the United States, such that members of the citizenry are able to sue on behalf of the public interest and have their claims adjudicated in federal court.
Transplanting for Public Interest: A Case for Relaxing Procedural Standing Requirements in Environmental Litigation in the United States Based on India’s PIL System (Vol. 56.4)
6 Sep 2025