Juliana v. US: Youth Climate Activists Go to Court

By Emma Davies
Emma Davies is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy.

In 2015, 21 plaintiffs all under the age of 23 sued the US government in the US District Court for the District Court for the District of Oregon in a case titled Juliana v. US. The plaintiffs, supported by the advocacy group Our Children’s Trust claimed that the US government had recklessly promoted fossil fuel use, which jeopardizes the stability and health of the climate. They argued that the US government’s actions violated people’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, on the basis that a stable climate is a necessary condition to exercise these rights.

The plaintiffs pointed to: approval of fossil fuel infrastructure projects, leasing of federal lands for coal, gas, and oil extraction, and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, as evidence of federal endorsement of the fossil fuel industry [1]. Research shows that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming by increasing the emission of greenhouse gases-- gases such as C02, methane and S02 which are known to trap heat and warm the Earth, into the atmosphere [2]. The plaintiffs then cites increasing extreme weather events, such as droughts, heat waves, and forest fires as current ramifications of the U.S government’s disregard for the environment [3]. 

In response, the fossil fuel industry, and the US government, attempted to have the case dismissed. In November 2016, U.S. Judge Ann Aiken denied the defendants motions to dismiss the case on the grounds that there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and a stated claim by the plaintiffs [4] . For the past three years, the Trump Administration has sought to halt the legal proceedings by filing requests to convince the Supreme Court to dismiss the lower court rulings. One of the arguments provided by the Administration was that the Supreme Court would ultimately dismiss the case, so the proceedings should not continue for the sake of saving time and resources [5]. The Courts repeatedly denied these petitions; however, this process extended the trial process. Oral arguments were made in front of three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4, 2019. On January 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court issued their order on the appeal. In support of the plaintiffs, they acknowledged the evidence of injuries suffered by the plaintiffs, and the role of the government in causing them. Two of the judges stated that the government’s actions did in fact violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, however, they stipulated that the plaintiffs’ requests were best remediated through the executive and legislative branch. The third judge fully sided with the plaintiffs, affirming that they had a constitutional environmental right. As of now, the plaintiffs awaits review by the full Circuit Court [6]. 

The future of Juliana v. US is yet to be determined, however, it is clear that this case serves as a landmark case due to  its implications for youth advocacy and climate justice. First, the makeup of the plaintiffs alone influences the scope of their argument. All 21 plaintiffs were minors when they filed this case . The plaintiffs’ focus on the impact that climate change has for future generations emphasizes a form of justice that is forward-looking. It asks the judiciary to consider what duty the US government has to the future, not solely what is required of it to fix past wrongs. Furthermore, Juliana v. US propels notions of climate justice to the forefront by asserting that the government has an obligation to prevent the destruction of public trust resources, including the climate, in order to protect the Constitutional “rights to life, liberty, [and] property,” [7]. How the court determines this case will serve as a precedent in establishing whether the judiciary has an obligation to protect the climate on behalf of its citizens, and what type of remedial actions, if any, are required.   

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

Sources:

[1] Howard, Caitlin. “Oyez: Let Us Be Heard.” YouthvGov, YouthvGov, 16 Jan. 2018, www.youthvgov.org/blog/let-us-be-heard. 

[2] “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 13 Sept. 2019, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

[3] pp. 1–3, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5824e85e6a49638292ddd1c9/1478813795912/Order MTD.Aiken.pdf.

[4] Howard, Caitlin. “Oyez: Let Us Be Heard.” YouthvGov, YouthvGov, 16 Jan. 2018, www.youthvgov.org/blog/let-us-be-heard.

[5] Richardson, John. “Juliana v. United States: an Overview.” Consilience The Journal of Sustainable Development, consiliencejournal.org/2019/07/08/juliana-v-united-states-an-overview/.

[6] “Landmark U.S. Federal Climate Lawsuit.” Our Children's Trust, Our Children's Trust, www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us.

[7] Schwartz, John. “Judges Give Both Sides a Grilling in Youth Climate Case Against the Government.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/climate/climate-lawsuit-juliana.html.

Photo Credit: Robin Loznak