Date: 17 January 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation(s): Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)
Short summary
A group of young people sued the United States government for failing to prevent climate change, seeking an order requiring the government to develop a plan to phase out domestic fossil fuel emissions. The plaintiffs claimed violations of their substantive due process, equal protection, the Ninth Amendment, and the public trust doctrine. The court found that the plaintiffs established injury-in-fact and causation for Article III standing but that their claim failed for lack of redressability.
Summary by: Nicole Gasmen and Luke Hancox
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
This decision comes from the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals and is therefore binding on all courts in the Circuit and persuasive in other federal courts.
Key facts
The plaintiffs were twenty-one young citizens, an environmental organization, and a “representative of future generations.” [1165] They sued the President (later dismissed from the action), the United States, and federal agencies. The complaint accused the government of continuing to “permit, authorize, and subsidize” [1165] fossil fuel use, despite awareness of its risks, leading to various climate-change-related injuries. The plaintiffs’ claims varied from psychological harm and impairment of recreational interests to exacerbated medical conditions and property damage.
The complaint asserted violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights:
“(1) the plaintiffs’ substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (2) the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of the law; (3) the plaintiffs’ rights under the Ninth Amendment; and (4) the public trust doctrine.” [1165]
The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide].” [1165]
The court noted that the District Court record and this appeal recognized climate change is occurring at a rapid pace. The court stated that rising carbon emissions would wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if left unchecked, and that the federal government long understood these risks and affirmatively contributed to their worsening.
The government largely did not contest the factual basis for the plaintiffs’ claims, only that they lacked standing to pursue them.
Previous instances
The District Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss. That court stated that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims that the government violated their constitutional rights, including a Fifth Amendment right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” [1165] The District Court also found a separate viable “danger-creation due process claim” [1165] based on the government’s lack of regulation on third-party emissions and a public trust doctrine claim.
At summary judgment, the District Court dismissed the President as a defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim in part. That court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment claims. The government then sought this interlocutory appeal to resolve the standing issue and other grounds for dismissal.
Continued on the next page…