Juliana v. US

Date of Application:	Thu, 10 Sep 2015
Date of Decision:	Wed, 01 May 2024
Decision Making Body:	US Supreme Court
Law Applied:	Fifth Amendment (Due process, equal protection) to the United States Ninth Amendment to the United States Public Trust Doctrine
Keywords:	Equal protection, Due process, Public trust doctrine, Right to a stable climate system, Right to life, liberty, property

Juliana v. United States, 947 F 3d 1159 (9th Cir, 2020).

At issue: Youth Plaintiffs Asserted Constitutional Claims Against Federal Government for Failure to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions.   

Complaint (10 September 2015) 

Twenty-one individual plaintiffs, all age 19 or younger, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Oregon against the United States, the president, and various federal officials and agencies. The individuals were joined by the non-profit organization Earth Guardian and a plaintiff identified as “Future Generations,” which is represented by Dr. James Hansen, a climate scientist and former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who also submitted a declaration in support of the complaint. The plaintiffs asked the court to compel the defendants to take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions so that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be no greater than 350 parts per million by 2100. The plaintiffs alleged that the “nation’s climate system” was critical to their rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the defendants had violated their substantive due process rights by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at “dangerous levels.” The plaintiffs also asserted an equal protection claim based on the government’s denial to them of fundamental rights afforded to prior and present generations. They also asserted violations of rights secured by the Ninth Amendment, which the plaintiffs said protects “the right to be sustained by our country’s vital natural systems, including our climate system.” The plaintiffs also alleged that defendants failed to fulfill their obligations under the public trust doctrine. 

 

Re decision of 1 June 2023 - Oregon Federal Court Allowed Juliana Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint to Rectify Deficiency Identified by Ninth Circuit. More than three years after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States lacked standing for their claims that federal defendants violated their constitutionally protected rights to a stable climate system capable of sustaining human life, the federal district court for the District of Oregon granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to attempt to cure what the district court characterized as “a narrow deficiency with plaintiffs’ pleadings on redressability.” The district court concluded that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate did not require the court “to shut the courthouse doors” on the plaintiffs where the plaintiffs cited intervening precedent and made new factual allegations. In particular, the plaintiffs cited a 2021 Supreme Court decision that held that judicial ability to “to effectuate a partial remedy” satisfies the redressability requirement for standing. The plaintiffs contended that their amended allegations demonstrated that relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act would provide sufficient partial redress of their climate change-related injuries. The plaintiffs also omitted relief that the Ninth Circuit found to be outside the scope of judicial authority, including a request for an order requiring the defendants to develop and implement a remedial plan. The district court found that the proposed amendments were not futile, concluding that “a declaration that federal defendants’ energy policies violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights would itself be significant relief” and that such relief was “squarely within the constitutional and statutory power of Article III courts to grant.” The court therefore found “that the complaint can be saved by amendment.” 

1 May 2024 - Ninth Circuit Directed District Court to Dismiss Juliana v. United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s petition for writ of mandamus and directed the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss Juliana v. United States for lack of Article III standing, without leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit noted that it had held in 2020 that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case on that basis. The Ninth Circuit further stated that mandamus was appropriate remedy when “sought on the ground that the district court failed to follow the appellate court’s mandate.” Although the district court had concluded that amendment of the complaint “was not expressly precluded” by the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the Ninth Circuit’s May 1 order stated that “[n]either the mandate’s letter nor its spirit left room for amendment.” The Ninth Circuit also disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that an intervening change in the law made it permissible to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The Ninth Circuit found that the U.S. Supreme Court decision cited by the district court did not change the law with respect to prospective relief, and therefore did not affect the redressability of the plaintiffs’ claims. 

9 December 2024 - Juliana Plaintiffs Asked Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Order Directing Dismissal of Their Case. On December 9, 2024, the youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ granting of the federal government’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 7, 2025, the Solicitor General requested an extension until February 12, 2025 for the filing of the government’s response. The petition presented two questions: (1) When plaintiffs have established their ongoing injuries are traceable to defendants’ policies and practices, does Article III require a particularized factual determination of whether a federal agency or official will redress plaintiffs’ injuries following a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves the constitutional controversy, and (2) Whether exceptions exist to the three demanding conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). The plaintiffs argued that the first question was “nearly identical” to the question presented in a case in which the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument later this term. The plaintiffs asked the Court to hold their petition pending the Court’s opinion in the other case and then grant their petition, vacate the Ninth Circuit’s order, and remand to the Ninth Circuit for review. Regarding the second question, the plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit was wrong because it did not apply Cheney’s “demanding conditions” for mandamus and that its decision “deepens an acknowledged circuit split” over whether an exception to Cheney exists when mandamus is sought to enforce an appellate court’s mandate. 

24 March 2025 - Supreme Court Denied Juliana Plaintiffs’ Certiorari Petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied youth plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s May 2024 order directing the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss their second amended complaint in the climate change lawsuit they filed in 2015. The second amended complaint sought a declaration that the U.S.’s national energy system and a federal energy statute providing for authorizations of certain natural gas imports and exports violated the Constitution by causing harmful conditions that result from climate change. The district court had allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint after the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2020 that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged harms from climate change were not redressable by the courts. In 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted the federal government’s petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the court to dismiss the case, rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate did not preclude amendment and that an intervening Supreme Court decision changed the law on redressability of declaratory judgments. 

Juliana v. United States - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com) 

Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre.  

(This summary may be slightly different from the summary on the Sabin Centre database.) 

 

Court documents: 

Complaint (10 September 2015) 

Decision of the District Court per Aiken J (1 June 2023) to allow matter to proceed to trial.

Order list Supreme Court's denial of Plaintiffs’ Certiorari Petition (24 March 2025)

Timeline of interim motions and decisions

Related CRC articles

• 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
• 3. Right to have child’s/children’s best interests taken as primary consideration in all matters affecting them (CRC Article 3)
• 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
• 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)

The applicants argue that their rights to life, liberty, property and equality are violated. 

They also asserted violations of rights secured by the Ninth Amendment, which the plaintiffs said protects “the right to be sustained by our country’s vital natural systems, including our climate system.” 

The Members of Congress’ amicus brief refers to the states duty to act in the best interests of children. 

Involvement of children in hearings

• Written presentation

The plaintiffs’ individual circumstances and details are set out at length in the complaint.  

Intergenerational rights

The plaintiffs asserted an equal protection claim based on the government’s denial to them of fundamental rights afforded to prior and present generations.

Complaint (10 September 2015)

Answer filed by real parties in interest (28 August 2017) refers to “intergenerational ethics”.

The Members of Congress’ amicus brief (28 March 2024) refers to “intergenerational trust”.

The order and opinion denying the DOJ’s motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, ruling that the youth plaintiffs can proceed to trial (29 December 2023) refers to the Sharma case regarding “intergenerational injustice”.

Future generations

Documents referring to future generations include: 

Complaint (10 September 2015) 

Decision (1 June 2023) to allow matter to proceed to trial .

Amicus brief filed by League of Women Voters of the United States in support of plaintiffs (12 September 2016) 

Consent motion filed by Center for International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide – US (5 September 2017).

The order and opinion of 29 December 2023.

Outcome of decision for the applicants

• Relief sought by applicants NOT granted

The matter did not proceed to trial on the merits. The respondent launched an unprecedented number of interim applications to prevent the case from proceeding to trial alleging, inter alia, that the children do not have standing to bring the case to court. On 24 March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied youth plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s May 2024 order directing the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss their second amended complaint in the climate change lawsuit they filed in 2015.

Did outcome of decision develop the law

• Yes

The decision (1 June 2023) allowed the matter to proceed to trial and made some important findings on the existence of a right to a healthy climate. 

The decision was overturned, and the merits were never heard in trial, but the 2023 decision inspired many case strategies and developments in the law in the USA and abroad, notably Held v Montana, and Navahine v Hawai'i.  

Involvement of NGO/law firm in application

Legal representatives

Wild Earth Advocates

Eugene, Oregon

 

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

Burlingame, CA

 

Law Offices of Daniel M. Galpern

Eugene, OR

 

NGOs 

• Earth Guardian 
• Future Generations, represented by Dr. James Hansen, a climate scientist and former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 

Amici curiae 

• Members of Congress in support of plaintiffs  

Available information on how children got involved in the litigation

Meet the plaintiffs 

Age range of litigants

• 8-12
• 13-17
• 18-25

Number of children or youth involved

21