Juliana v. United States
Background
Juliana v. United States is a landmark constitutional climate lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. The case was brought by 21 young plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust. The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. government's actions and inactions regarding climate change violate their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as fail to protect essential public trust resources. The case is notable for its unique approach, focusing on constitutional and public trust arguments rather than statutory environmental laws.
Legal Theories and Claims
The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States assert that the federal government's policies and practices regarding fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to climate change, thereby infringing on their constitutional rights. The case is grounded in several legal theories:
Constitutional Rights
The plaintiffs argue that the government's actions violate their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. They claim that the government's promotion of fossil fuels and failure to curb emissions endanger their right to a stable climate system, which is essential for their life, liberty, and property.
Public Trust Doctrine
The public trust doctrine is a legal principle that holds certain natural resources, such as air and water, in trust for public use. The plaintiffs contend that the government has failed to protect these resources from the impacts of climate change, thus breaching its fiduciary duty under the public trust doctrine.
Equal Protection
The plaintiffs also invoke the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the government's actions disproportionately harm younger generations, who will bear the brunt of climate change impacts.
Procedural History
The case has undergone a complex procedural journey since its filing. In 2016, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken denied the government's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to trial. Judge Aiken's decision was based on the recognition of a constitutional right to a stable climate system.
In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the trial, followed by a writ of mandamus request by the government to dismiss the case. The Ninth Circuit ultimately allowed the case to proceed, but the trial was delayed due to further appeals.
In January 2020, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the court could not provide the requested relief. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied in February 2021.
Impact and Significance
Juliana v. United States has garnered significant attention for its innovative legal approach and the broader implications for climate litigation. The case has inspired similar lawsuits worldwide, where young plaintiffs seek to hold governments accountable for climate change.
Legal Precedents
While the case has faced procedural hurdles, it has set important legal precedents. Judge Aiken's 2016 decision recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate system, a novel concept in U.S. jurisprudence. The case has also highlighted the potential of the public trust doctrine as a tool for climate litigation.
Public Awareness
The case has raised public awareness about the role of the judiciary in addressing climate change and the rights of future generations. It has sparked discussions on the intersection of environmental law, constitutional rights, and intergenerational justice.
Criticisms and Challenges
Juliana v. United States has faced criticisms and challenges from various quarters. Critics argue that the judiciary is not the appropriate forum for addressing climate change, which requires comprehensive policy solutions. The case has also faced legal challenges regarding standing, justiciability, and the separation of powers.
Standing and Justiciability
The issue of standing has been a central challenge in the case. The Ninth Circuit's dismissal was based on the plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate that the court could redress their injuries. The question of justiciability, or whether the case presents a political question beyond the court's purview, has also been a point of contention.
Separation of Powers
The case raises questions about the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch. Critics argue that the courts should not dictate climate policy, which is traditionally within the purview of the legislative and executive branches.
Future Prospects
Despite the setbacks, the plaintiffs and their legal team remain committed to pursuing the case. They have expressed intentions to seek further judicial review and explore other legal avenues. The case continues to influence climate litigation and inspire youth-led climate activism globally.