This chapter explores the potential of climate cases to drive climate transformation. Since the first climate cases were filed in the early 1990s, jurisprudence has shifted from rejecting the claims for lack of standing and for speculative harms to issuing findings in favor of petitioners and using IPCC reports as legal proof. We find that in most of these cases, courts do not hand down spectacular, precedent-breaking decisions or treat climate change as an exceptional legal problem. Instead, they tend to engage in low-profile climate jurisprudence, adapting existing legal frameworks to make them workable for climate-related issues. Elaborating on MacKinnon’s Butterfly Politics, we argue that advancing low-profile cases in a coordinated manner could create an atmospheric “butterfly effect.” In the past decade, low-profile, “butterfly climate jurisprudence” has nudged governments into making better informed decisions on issues such as fuel efficiency standards, the licensing of extractive projects, airport expansions, urban developments along coastlines, and incentives for renewable energy projects. The normalization or routinization of climate adjudication broadens its reach and impact and is less prone to backlash and vulnerabilities than more spectacular cases. As a result, their potential should be further studied and tested.