A Legal Blueprint for Climate Activism: Insights from Juliana v. United States

Written by: Mark Schaeffer

Introduction

Juliana v. United States is a landmark climate lawsuit that has captured the attention of environmentalists, legal scholars, and policymakers alike.¹Jeffrey Kluger, Climate Gets Its Day in Court, Time (January 4, 2024), https://time.com/6552129/juliana-vs-us-climate-case/?form=MG0AV3. Filed in 2015 by twenty-one young plaintiffs represented by Our Children’s Trust (collectively “the plaintiffs”), the case argues that the U.S. government’s failure to address climate change violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional due process rights to a livable environment.²Sadie Minjares Odom, Juliana v. United States: Standing on the “Eve of Destruction”, 52 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 79, 82 (2022). This blog post delves into the history of the case and analyzes the major issues at stake.

History of the Case
Juliana v. U.S. began on August 12, 2015, when the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the federal government in the District Court of Oregon (“the District Court”).³Juliana v. U.S., No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2024 WL 1695064, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 19, 2024). The government moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, failure to state a cognizable constitutional claim, and failure to state a claim on a public trust theory, but the District Court denied that motion, along with subsequent motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment.⁴Id. The government then appealed these denials to the Ninth Circuit, where a divided panel reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss because the plaintiffs had failed to prove redressability of their grievance, which is required for Article 3 standing.⁵Id. (The District Court certified its orders for interlocutory appeal after the Ninth Circuit invited it to do so.) The plaintiffs then moved to amend their complaint to avoid dismissal which the District Court granted, but when the government again move to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, the District Court denied the request.⁶Juliana, supra note 3. The government then moved for a writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit ordering the District Court to dismiss the case which was granted on May 1, 2024.⁷Clark Mindock, US appeals Court says kids’ climate lawsuit must be dismissed, Reuters (May 1, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-says-kids-climate-lawsuit-must-be-dismissed-2024-05-01/ The plaintiffs have tried to keep their case alive by filing a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Supreme Court on September 12, 2024, but these petitions are rarely granted.⁸Daniella A. Einik, Victoria G. Walker, Youth Climate Litigation and the Legacy of Juliana, Jones Day (September 06, 2024), (https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2024/09/youth-climate-litigation-and-the-legacy-of-juliana?form=MG0AV3). Furthermore, in denying a Writ of Mandamus for the government earlier in the case, the Supreme Court explained that the government needed to exhaust its appeal for a writ at the Circuit level, but also seemed to signal in its explanation of denial that the plaintiffs’ claims were not justiciable by the Federal Courts.⁹In re U.S., 139 S. Ct. 452, 453 (2018) (denying the mandamus petition because the government had not exhausted their application to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would have granted the application forcing the District Court to dismiss the case).

Major Issues
Because Juliana is likely over, it is useful to review the case to understand the roadblocks that climate activists run into in pursuing change through the federal courts and the surprising ways in which climate activists are making headway. The primary roadblock for environmental activists is the boundary of judicial authority and the traditional limits the federal courts adhere to under the Constitution by refraining from compelling the federal government to act on climate change.¹⁰Juliana v. U.S., 947 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2020). The plaintiffs argued that the government supported use of fossil fuel despite understanding its detrimental affect on the atmosphere and climate change and sought an injunction requiring the government to develop a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions.¹¹Id. The Ninth Circuit found that at least some of the plaintiffs had concrete injuries necessary for standing and that causation was “sufficiently established.”¹²Id. at 1168 (finding that some of plaintiffs’ injuries, such as being forced to leave home due to water scarcity and evacuating home due to flooding, were “not simply conjectural or hypothetical”). Where the plaintiff’s case struggled was redressability for their injuries.¹³Id. The plaintiffs requested a declaration that the government had violated the Constitution, and an injunction requiring the government to create a plan eliminating fossil fuel and drive down harmful emission.¹⁴Id. at 1170. The Ninth Circuit did not think that the declaration would provide any relief to the plaintiffs and, the injunction was “beyond the power of an Article III court to order” because it involved nonjusticiable political questions beyond the reach of the courts.¹⁵Id. (distinguishing, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007), by saying that it involved a procedural right that Massachusetts special status as a state allowed it to assert without meeting the typical redressability requirements). Despite ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their case, the Ninth Circuit found that their claim for infringement of a Fifth Amendment due process right to a “climate system capable of sustaining life” was something about which “[r]easonable jurists can disagree.”¹⁶Juliana, supra note 14, at 1169. It did not expressly overrule the District Court’s opinion on that claim.¹⁷Juliana v. U.S., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1250 (D. Or. 2016), rev’d and remanded, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)(holding that there is “no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. Just as marriage is the ‘foundation of the family,’ a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation ‘of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.’”) (quoting Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 666 (2015)). The plaintiffs also made a related claim that the “atmosphere, water, seas, seashores and wildlife” were public trust assets which the Ninth Circuit did not address.¹⁸Juliana, supra note 18, at 1254.

Conclusion
Juliana v. United States is a landmark environmental law case that has the potential to shape future environmental litigation. Even if the case is over now it could provide a blueprint for other climate change activists by providing new claims under due process and the public trust doctrine.¹⁹Mia Hammersley, The Right to A Healthy and Stable Climate: Fundamental or Unfounded?, 7 Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 117, 119 (2017). Furthermore, it demonstrates that the largest barrier to judicial standing is not redressability in and of itself but the political questions doctrine which prevents the judiciary from assuming power and control over environmental regulation.²⁰Juliana, supra note 14, at 1173 (comparing the absence of standards, lack of accountability, and expansion of uninhibited expansion of judicial power that would be required to address political gerrymandering in Rucho v. Com. Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), with the requirements to oversee and enforce a plan to phase out fossil fuel). While the Supreme Court has not yet decided to hear the case, the issues in Juliana v. United States will undoubtedly resurface in future battles for our planet’s survival.

Citations

• 1
  Jeffrey Kluger, Climate Gets Its Day in Court, Time (January 4, 2024), https://time.com/6552129/juliana-vs-us-climate-case/?form=MG0AV3.
• 2
  Sadie Minjares Odom, Juliana v. United States: Standing on the “Eve of Destruction”, 52 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 79, 82 (2022).
• 3
  Juliana v. U.S., No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2024 WL 1695064, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 19, 2024).
• 4
  Id.
• 5
  Id. (The District Court certified its orders for interlocutory appeal after the Ninth Circuit invited it to do so.)
• 6
  Juliana, supra note 3.
• 7
  Clark Mindock, US appeals Court says kids’ climate lawsuit must be dismissed, Reuters (May 1, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-says-kids-climate-lawsuit-must-be-dismissed-2024-05-01/
• 8
  Daniella A. Einik, Victoria G. Walker, Youth Climate Litigation and the Legacy of Juliana, Jones Day (September 06, 2024), (https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2024/09/youth-climate-litigation-and-the-legacy-of-juliana?form=MG0AV3).
• 9
  In re U.S., 139 S. Ct. 452, 453 (2018) (denying the mandamus petition because the government had not exhausted their application to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would have granted the application forcing the District Court to dismiss the case).
• 10
  Juliana v. U.S., 947 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2020).
• 11
  Id.
• 12
  Id. at 1168 (finding that some of plaintiffs’ injuries, such as being forced to leave home due to water scarcity and evacuating home due to flooding, were “not simply conjectural or hypothetical”).
• 13
  Id.
• 14
  Id. at 1170.
• 15
  Id. (distinguishing, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007), by saying that it involved a procedural right that Massachusetts special status as a state allowed it to assert without meeting the typical redressability requirements).
• 16
  Juliana, supra note 14, at 1169.
• 17
  Juliana v. U.S., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1250 (D. Or. 2016), rev’d and remanded, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)(holding that there is “no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. Just as marriage is the ‘foundation of the family,’ a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation ‘of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.’”) (quoting Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 666 (2015)).
• 18
  Juliana, supra note 18, at 1254.
• 19
  Mia Hammersley, The Right to A Healthy and Stable Climate: Fundamental or Unfounded?, 7 Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 117, 119 (2017).
• 20
  Juliana, supra note 14, at 1173 (comparing the absence of standards, lack of accountability, and expansion of uninhibited expansion of judicial power that would be required to address political gerrymandering in Rucho v. Com. Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), with the requirements to oversee and enforce a plan to phase out fossil fuel).