An important consideration for a lawyer considering whether or not to take on a public interest case centers around what organizations can be partnered with in the preparation and trial phases of litigation, both legal and non-legal. The vary nature of these cases are, after all, in the public’s interest. Especially for smaller firms considering suit against governments and multinationals, drawing on the community the lawsuit seeks to serve can strengthen the movement by adding people, perspective, and power and increasing the chances of a favorable outcome. The Center for Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE) is one such organization that drives legal outcomes with litigation and community engagement. It is a campaign-based business and hires lawyers, community organizers, and communications professionals to promote environmental justice issues impacting low-income communities and communities of color in the San Joaquin Valley, California area. CRPE works on issues ranging from pollution from the oil and gas industry, pesticides and dairy emissions, sustainable agriculture, and community building.

People. CRPE connects a variety of professionals and does work outside of what is strictly legal, which sets it apart from many of its competitors. It is heavily focused on community and coalition building. It works with regulators, state and local officials. CRPE partners with community groups in towns around the San Joaquin Valley. They also partner with State and National groups working on related issues to build their people power and connect local communities to national movements and ultimately, hopefully, systemic change. CPRE builds on its connections to communities in partnership with them, expanding the number of hands available for the numerous tasks ahead.

Power. Connecting various movements builds the power of these movements and coalesces them around what connects them. For example, CPRE campaigned to pass a novel oil and gas ordinance in Arvin in the years leading to its adoption in 2018, and worked with local government and communities groups to accomplish the task. CRPE has also campaigned for the passage of dairy emissions regulations in California, and worked with various groups along the way to accomplish it. CRPE sees the question of environmental justice as an inverted one; rather than tackling issues solely on the local level, CRPE considers the state and national systems that bring the local circumstances to life. In this way, they use local power to confront and shape systems power.

Perspective. Working on the local level is still important. And it is local people and their experiences that give perspective to the movement. CPRE has engaged with local communities to challenge redlining that segregates and dilutes low-income communities and communities of color. They also work with local communities to challenge the entrenched land use policies that have led to communities in the San Joaquin Valley without sidewalks, or safe drinking water. In communities like Delano, California (where my grandmother lived when I was a child) the lack of sidewalks and curbs are no longer the law, but have not yet been remedied. With this perspective, CPRE has worked with the community to seek funding for community projects, and campaigned with community leaders and high school students to secure funding from Kern County to build them.

CRPE has on occasion brought these lessons to bear on its national public litigation efforts, including Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobile Corp. CRPE joined with the Native American Rights Fund in 2008 to sue two dozen greenhouse gas emitters on behalf of the Village of Kivalina. They argued that the emitters where irrevocably damaging their ability to sustain their native ways of life and their traditions due to the erosion of the sea ice that historically surrounded their Alaskan village, and around which their hunting and fishing traditions are built. They also alleged a conspiracy to hide the real effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the public. Unfortunately, in September 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, and ruled that the Clean Air Act does not provide damages as a remedy, thereby prevented Kivalina from seeking damages. The Claimant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied in 2013, ending the case.

The case emphasizes the difficulty of public litigation for climate issues. The original case struggled to demonstrate that the emitters were the ones responsible for the loss of their habitat. The laws that purport to protect communities from pollution often don’t offer a remedy for citizens, which is why work to change local, state, and national laws ought to be undertaken alongside litigation efforts. And finally, even without a win at court, CRPE demonstrates that there are numerous frontlines on which the war for sustainability will be fought, and a wide range of soldiers equipped for these frontlines.