Progressives have found a new client to represent in court: rivers.
In the latest absurd chapter of left-wing legal activism, environmentalists are now arguing that rivers, forests, and even entire ecosystems should be granted legal personhood and the ability to sue in court. Not metaphorically—literally.
It’s called the “rights of nature” movement, and it’s gaining traction in courts, the mainstream press, and even some national governments around the world.
Earlier this year, for instance, a court in Ecuador granted the country’s “marine ecosystems” the right to “maintain their natural life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.” In the U.S., nearly three dozen cities and counties have passed ordinances to protect the so-called “rights of nature.”
But the movement has really gained popularity in connection to a left-wing pastime even more popular than fringe environmental nonsense: waging legal warfare against President Donald Trump. After Trump’s pro-growth, pro-energy platform won the day at the ballot box last year, progressive activists are turning to the rights of nature movement as a way to wage legal warfare on his agenda.
A recent New York Times opinion piece titled “Trump’s War on Nature Is Up Against a Powerful New Resistance Movement” clearly lays out this strategy. As Robert Macfarlane, the author of Is a River Alive? explains, the United States is supposedly in a period of “deep ecological gloom” due to the Trump administration’s “doctrine of human supremacy.”
As a solution, Macfarlane holds up the case of the Whanganui River in New Zealand as a model for how the U.S. might reimagine environmental law. The New Zealand Parliament has formally recognized the Whanganui River as a “spiritual and physical entity,” and a group of appointed guardians now speak for the river and are tasked with protecting its “mauri,” or life force.
In other words, a group of activist lawyers are now claiming to speak on behalf of a river—deciding what it wants, what it needs, and how the rest of us should live around it.
Another recent article from Rolling Stone tells us that the Trump administration is “pushing the climate crisis to a breaking point” and that the rights of nature movement can “save” us. That piece details a bill currently before the New York State Assembly which could grant legal rights to Lake Huron.
As crazy as it all sounds, this legal stunt is now gaining popularity, and activists are attempting to rewrite laws by using nature as a puppet and leftist ideology as the puppeteer.
In one of the first “rights of nature” cases filed in the United States, the city of Seattle settled a lawsuit in 2023 where a species of salmon was the plaintiff. The city agreed to create a fish passage program for salmon to migrate past several Skagit River hydroelectric dams that feed power to the city. Upon settling, Mari Margil, the director of the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights which assisted with the lawsuit, said, “We hope that this is the first of many rights of nature cases that result in real, practical steps toward protecting the rights of ecosystems and species… [this lawsuit] sets a framework for other campaigns to follow.”
Translation: they want to bulldoze centuries of Western legal tradition and property rights to give rocks and rivers standing in court – while they collect the attorney’s fees, of course.
But as is always the case with the “climate change” brigade, none of this is actually about the environment. It’s about power and control.
As one eco-activist admitted in an op-ed for The Observatory earlier this month, the rights of nature movement is intended to change cultural perceptions “to view human beings and natural entities as equal.” That’s not just a legal tweak – it’s an inversion of the notion that Mankind has a responsibility to act as a good steward of nature while also maintaining the right to use nature at our discretion.
Proponents of the rights of nature movement argue that corporations, under U.S. and British law, are nonhuman entities with a wide suite of legal rights. So, why not a river?
But that strawman argument doesn’t stand up to even the slightest breeze. Corporations are collections of people organized for a purpose, not inanimate objects. Granting legal standing to a river—an unthinking, unfeeling body of water—is a completely different matter.
In his Times article, Macfarlaneasserts that “the river has a right to flow, to be clean, and to be healthy.” But who defines “healthy”? Who decides what a river “wants”? Unsurprisingly, it’s activist lawyers and progressive judges. These are hardly neutral parties.
The rights of nature movement is not about conservation. It’s about giving unelected activists and ideological nonprofits the power to sue on behalf of “nature” anytime a farmer builds a dam, a rancher lays a pipe, or a developer breaks ground.
Moreover, it is impossible to ignore that many of the same people pushing legal rights for rivers are the loudest defenders of abortion without limits. In the mind of a modern progressive, a salmon has more legal protections than a child in the womb. A 38-week-old unborn baby should be killed without a second thought, but a muddy streambed now demands constitutional recognition.
If a “right to flow” for a river can be imagined into existence, what about the right to life for a baby with 10 fingers and toes and a heartbeat? If nature has standing, why doesn’t a fetus with thoughts and dreams?
These contradictions are the core of the modern left’s worldview. They invent rights for political gain while denying the most basic right to those who cannot speak for themselves. The “rights of nature” movement exposes that their only priority is power.
It also creates a legal disaster. If rivers and forests are people under the law, then any group can claim to represent them in court. Development projects could be shut down by lawsuits filed in the name of dirt.
Americans support clean water and responsible land use. They want strong environmental stewardship. But they don’t want a legal system hijacked by activists who believe moss has legal personhood and babies don’t.
The legacy media may treat this as progress. But most Americans see it for what it is: a dangerous and profoundly unserious abuse of the law.
W.J. Lee has served in the White House, NASA, on multiple political campaigns, and in nearly all levels of government. In his free time, he enjoys the “three R’s” – reading, running, and writing.
This is the most ridiculous thing the democrats have come up with since they threw open the borders and we became a lawless country they support. Babies in the womb have no rights and the tree in my front yard can take me to court?. Anyone can see any logic in that?
Gee I can’t believe I am reading something like this. As Max has stated “Unbelievable”. Another gimmick for lawyers to suck money out of us.
Doesn’t a fetus, an unborn baby, a newly born child, have the right to “maintain their natural life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.”?? Shameful that people would pick and choose which gifts from God should be allowed to “thrive & live”.
My cherry tree has expressed his anger over actions Gov Pritzker has taken lately. I’ll let him know he can start writing up his complaint. “C Tree Vs JB Pritzker”
OK, if they want to grant legal “personhood” to a river, this could be complicated. Is it male or female? I know in the French language, a river (rivière) is female. So how would one distinguish between a male or female river? We all know this craziness will eventually go that far if we allow it.
As an avid canoeist, I have spent a lot of time out on rivers. I have felt God speak to me as I wonder at the glory of his creation. I can read a river, but I have never had one speak to me. I don’t mind giving the salmon a chance to migrate upstream and spawn. For the most part, we just need to be good stewards with what we have been entrusted with. To equate a forest or a river to a human is just ridiculous. Use but don’t abuse, and everything will be fine.
Unbelievable!! It is bad enough that other nations have fallen to the ridiculous scheme that “Mother Nature” has rights but NONE of these have a soul and spirit. It is God’s creation that mankind has been tasked to manage. Can’t wait for God’s judgement at the end of the Tribulation for all who fell for this scheme.
Let the rivers, salmon, lakes and other bits of nature come to court to fight for their rights. They should be called up by the defense lawyers and required to give live testimony.
Of course a fetus would not be able to testify in it’s own behalf, but that is an infant or younger. The river has probably been around much longer and would be an adult.
Nothing about the left surprises me anymore, especially when it comes to putting the lives of fish and trees ahead of our Constitutional rights. Beware the power of stupid people in large numbers.
I have no problem with a lunatic associating with another like minded lunatic crusading for whatever cause as long as it is done on their own time and dime. No taxpayer involved, no public money involved ,unless they manage to get a donation from someone. Advocate away pay for it from your own pocket and don’t forget the rights of the birds killed by wind turbines.
The Bible tells us that we are called by GOD to be good stewards of the land. However, I have never seen anything in Scripture saying that the land or bodies of water had fundamental rights. A river has as much sentience as the coffee cup next to my computer. As for why liberals believe a river has more rights than a fetus in the womb, most liberals how hypocrites themselves, so it doesn’t surprise me. On a side note, according to Rush Limbaugh, most dictators were “champions” of climate change to control the people better.
If rivers have “rights,” why should we believe that some idiotic liberal knows what the river wants? Maybe the rivers wants to be dammed up. How does the idiot filing suit know?
Does this mean I can’t pee in the river anymore?
The Progressive Left are just becoming more absurd over time. They are Progressively becoming more and more insane, that’s why they are called “Progressives”
What in the hell do this jackasses due, just lay awake at nigh dreaming uo new ways to screw people over. We need to bring back tar and feathering for this obnoxious turds
GOD created Earth for Mankind. We are stewards. Earth doesn’t dictate to Mankind! We were given Power and Authority. Enough of these Atheists revealing their Humanist Beliefs. They shouldn’t be given any ear but called out for their lying ignorance, kicking them down the road. You are known by the company you keep.
So, according to them, any issue can be raised from a “non-person” object, including the “claimed” zygote, embryo, fetus, can file a lawsuit against anyone, for anything, and expect the Courts to entertain the most “frivolous” lawsuits ever concocted. I suggest the “gun” and the 2nd amendment file a lawsuit against every gun-control group or person including all officials violating their oath and duty of office. The requested “settlement ” would be unilateral full National Constitutional Carry with any carry and reciprocity, the abolishment of all ARMS control and “infringing” laws thereto, and the application of Article 3 “good behavior” failure removal of those Judges, immediately, AND Amendment 14, section 3, ineligibility of those officials, rebelling against the Constitution’s 2nd amendment, to hold any office, civil or military, under the United States be effected by mandatory Congressional Code to address the same under Amendment 14, section 5.
Today, the gardeners at my town home community trimmed back the spirea bushes along our sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian safety. But, oh, these flowering bushes had many bees in the process of harvesting the nectar from the flowers that were mowed off, sucked up and loaded into the back of a truck. Bees have rights too. Too bad if people were tripping over the branches extending into the walkways. Are human’s needs more important than those of bees? I know we have liberal neighbors who are probably thinking about hiring a lawyer for the bees as I write this.
I forsee a lack of forethought here. Lets get the names of the activists, lawyers, et.al, ‘representing’ the plaintif and sue them under the same ridiculous ideas to ‘REMOVE’ their home, apartment, condo to return the land it sits on to what nature intended! Our society is so screwed up someone is going to get hurt if these ideas keep popping up.
when the river goes on a rampage and floods will those that are flooded get to sue the river and those behind this stupidity?
“arguing that rivers, forests, and even entire ecosystems should be granted legal personhood and the ability to sue in court….” If judges in the USA buy this, we need to conduct mental tests for judges and we also need to reform the law schools
By what stretch of imagination does the New York State Legislature have authority over Lake Huron? My geography books say it is bordered by Canada and the state of Michigan, no contact with NY at all.
Another fine example of Idiots, Lawyers and Politicians. Triply Redundant that line.
Is one of the requirements to be a Progressive being an idiot too? OMG…What will they come up with next? I am so glad I switched to the GOP years ago.
The old cry from the pro-life activists used to be, “Be a hero, save a whale. Save a baby, go to jail.” Amen to that! Now we can add to that by saying, “Be a hero, save a tree. Save a baby, jail for thee.” More far left lunacy. I can picture airheaded ultraliberals like Harris and Cortez proposing such nonsense.
So, a river has a right to flow and a human fetus doesn’t have a right to live? Earth worshipping LIEberal DemoKKKRATS are truly insane. Giving a tree more rights than an unborn human is sheer idiocy. With DemoKKKRATS it’s all about power and control.
Drugs and pornography are poison to the mind. Look at what it has done to the “progressives” who, in actuality, are regressive and oppressive.
We must preserve the three-legged owl—quote from Al Gore.
So a US voter can’t file a legal action against election fraud because they don’t have standing (according to the courts). But now the left wants define objects in nature as legal entities.
Well, I guess that’s all fine and dandy as long as they can come up with a document signed by Lake Huron, or the Mississippi river stating that they legally have the right to represent it. And how is the lake or river or tree going to testify in court?
I better stop cutting my lawn before I get taken to court for genocide.
Progressives,leftists,liberals,marxists should have their own little area to screw up.The west coast starting with KALIFORNIA would be a good place to start and go from there.There are many dictators that could be in charge,pritzger,hochul,walz,pelosi,mad maxine,newsom,its amazing how many of these could be the chief in charge of absolutely nothing.
NO
Progressives only care for power. We currently have a gross imbalance in environmental activism over life. We all care about the environment and those who are concerned for the environment could be working on solutions that incorporate respect for human life, What we have instead is environment rather than human life! Progressives question the right to life and promote population reduction. ALL solutions should begin with human rights. We have the technology just need the resolve.
This is yet another difference between Christians and the Secular World. We worship the Creator while they worship the creations!
This is an alarming and compelling article, as it seems so far-fetched that so much legal inertia can be generated from such contorted verbal associations. It would seem more honest to simply “personify” a river in a socially congenial way… such as naming it “Mary”, or “Floyd”……
Why Conservatives Should Support the Rights of Nature Movement
Protecting What’s Ours: God’s Creation, Sovereignty, and Common Sense Stewardship
By now, you’ve probably heard talk about something called the “Rights of Nature.” Maybe you rolled your eyes and figured it was just another left-wing agenda designed to undermine our freedoms. But what if I told you that, at its core, the Rights of Nature movement is actually about protecting our God-given land, preserving our way of life, and putting decision-making power back in the hands of local communities, not unelected bureaucrats or global corporations?
Let’s take a deeper look — not with the language of radicalism, but with the values we hold dear: faith, family, country, and responsibility.
God Gave Us This Land — It’s Time We Take Care of ItMany conservatives believe, as do I, that God created this Earth — not just for our use, but for our stewardship. The Bible is clear: we are to “tend and keep” the garden (Genesis 2:15). That means protecting the rivers that give life to our crops, the forests that shield our wildlife, and the land that generations of our families have worked and lived on.
Rights of Nature laws don’t say a tree has the same rights as a person. What they do say is this: a river, for example, has the right not to be poisoned. That’s common sense. If a company came in and dumped toxic waste in your well or the creek your cattle drink from, wouldn’t you want the legal right to stop them? That’s what this is about.
Keeping Control Local — Not in the Hands of Big Government or Big BusinessWe’ve seen it time and again: Washington and multinational corporations teaming up to sell out small towns and rural communities. Factory farms, fracking operations, and mining giants come in, make promises, destroy the land, then pack up and leave when the damage is done.
Rights of Nature laws empower local governments and ordinary citizens to say no — to protect their water, air, and farmland. This isn’t top-down socialism; this is bottom-up sovereignty. It’s giving counties, towns, and tribal communities the legal tools to protect what’s theirs from outside exploitation.
Private Property Still Matters — This Isn’t About Taking Your LandLet’s clear something up. Rights of Nature isn’t about stripping farmers, ranchers, or landowners of their rights. In fact, many of the people pushing these laws are farmers and ranchers who’ve seen their wells run dry, their crops poisoned, or their livestock suffer due to industrial pollution.
These laws don’t stop you from working your land — they stop outsiders from destroying your community’s shared resources. If anything, they reinforce your right to defend your land from harm.
Defending American Values — Not Globalist AgendasWhat’s more American than defending your home? Than standing up against powerful interests? The Rights of Nature movement started not in some ivory tower or global think tank, but with working-class communities in Ecuador, New Zealand, the U.S. Rust Belt, and Appalachian towns sick of being dumped on — literally.
It’s the kind of grassroots, citizen-led initiative that should be championed by conservatives. And it has been — in places like Grant Township, Pennsylvania, where conservative farmers led the charge to protect their groundwater from fracking waste by passing Rights of Nature ordinances.
This isn’t about hugging trees. It’s about protecting our homes, health, and heritage.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Reclaim ConservationFor too long, we’ve let the Left monopolize the idea of “environmentalism.” But conservation — real, practical, land-honoring stewardship — has deep conservative roots. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest Republican presidents, made it a priority. So did Barry Goldwater. They understood that protecting our wild places and clean resources is not about control — it’s about preservation of liberty.
Rights of Nature laws don’t undermine our values — they uphold them. They help us keep our communities strong, our water clean, our land healthy, and our freedoms intact.
If we believe in faith, family, and freedom, then we must also believe in protecting the land that makes them possible.
It’s time conservatives take back the mantle of stewardship. The Rights of Nature movement is a tool we can — and should — use.
Let’s defend what’s ours.
The expected move from the absurd to the absurdly absurd. That’s the leftist nut agenda.
Oh wait, we had better be careful….”nuts” have rights too…right. Pecans can sue, so can brazil nuts and cashews….after all no one likes being eaten. Yet another progressive push to “save the planet”. Like was supposed to happen in the seventies when we were all going to freeze to death because of global cooling and too much CO2….So, now we have to fight them on another front where time, money, and energies get wasted that should be used for higher priorities. Don’t get me wrong, I do think it wise to be good stewards of our world, but when we make it our god for profit….well that’s past the pale.
So if a river floods my property will I be able to sue the attorneys standing for the rivers? To me that would signify malicious intent. Someone/something has to liable.
This unfair two foreign travelers come to give birth in the United States and their will be US Citizens!
Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Just another way to stand in the way of common sense and practicality. AND collect massive attorney fees of course!!!!
This is ridiculous and absurd! I am all for proper and responsible land use but this nutjob overreach is just plain crazy!
they believe the are the chaff part of nature.
This kind of stupidity is the stuff that keeps this world in the freak show category.
Spam
We are living in a sick society. These people need to get a job and find something relevant to the real world, perhaps share their money with the needy.
This article is wildly off base on so many levels. First of all, the Rights of Nature movement didn’t start with “progressives” or Democrats—it began with grassroots communities in Ecuador, many of them Indigenous, who were trying to protect their ecosystems, and their lives, from being destroyed. It’s not about left vs right. Not everything has to be filtered through a partisan lens—sometimes people are just trying to survive and care for the places they live.
Second, the idea that this is all driven by lawyers chasing money and power is incorrect. If communities could protect nature without going through the legal system, they absolutely would. But the system is built in a way that requires legal recognition to defend anything in court. And many of the lawyers working on these cases are doing it pro bono because they actually care. Maybe take the time to do some proper research before projecting your “power and control” worldview onto everyone else.
As for the idea that a river has more rights than a 38-week-old baby—come on. That’s pure hyperbole, and you know it. If we want to play that game, I could just as easily say some of you think a 6-week-old fetus has more rights than a grown woman. Let’s stop with the sensationalism.
And calling rivers “inanimate objects” completely erases the worldview of millions of Indigenous people who see rivers, mountains, and forests as living beings. That doesn’t make them wrong—it just makes their worldview different from yours. Dismissing that as absurd is honestly a classic example of cultural superiority and a refusal to consider perspectives outside your own.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about money or politics. It’s about protecting the natural world that we all depend on. It’s about recognising that we’re part of the Earth, not separate from it. If that makes some people uncomfortable, maybe it’s time to ask why.