SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
juliana v. united states
43 Lawmakers Back Youth in Climate Case Against US Government
A 17-year-old plaintiff commended the federal lawmakers for "using their voices to weigh in on the importance of our rights to access justice and to a livable climate."
Jan 13, 2025
Dozens of members of Congress on Monday submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting 21 youth plaintiffs who launched a historic constitutional climate case against the federal government nearly a decade ago.
Since Juliana v. United States was first filed in the District of Oregon in August 2015, the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have fought against it. Last May, a panel of three judges appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by President-elect Donald Trump granted a request by President Joe Biden's Department of Justice to dismiss the case.
After the U.S. Supreme Court in November denied the youth plaintiffs' initial request for intervention regarding the panel's decision, their attorneys filed a different type of petition last month. As Our Children's Trust, which represents the 21 young people, explains on its website, they argued to the justices that federal courts are empowered by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) "to resolve active disputes between citizens and their government when citizens are being personally injured by government policies, even if the relief is limited to a declaration of individual rights and government wrongs."
The Monday filing from seven U.S. senators and 36 members of the House of Representatives argues to the nation's top court that "the 9th Circuit's dismissal of the petitioners' constitutional suit for declaratory relief has no basis in law and threatens to undermine the Declaratory Judgment Act, one of the most consequential remedial statutes that Congress has ever enacted."
The Supreme Court "should grant the petition to clarify that declaratory relief under the DJA satisfies the Article III redressability requirement," wrote the federal lawmakers, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "Doing so is necessary because Congress expressly authorized declaratory relief 'whether or not further relief is or could be sought.'"
"The 9th Circuit's jurisdictional holding, which prevented the district court from even reaching the question whether declaratory relief would be appropriate, conflicts with this court's holding that the DJA is constitutional," the lawmakers continued. "It also conflicts with this court's holding that Article III courts may not limit DJA relief to cases where an injunction would be appropriate."
In a Monday statement, Juliana's youngest plaintiff, 17-year-old Levi D., welcomed the support from the 43 members of Congress—including Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
"After 10 years of delay, I have spent more than half of my life as a plaintiff fighting for my fundamental rights to a safe climate. Yet, the courthouse doors are still closed to us," said Levi. "Five years ago, members of Congress stood by me and my co-plaintiffs on the steps of the Supreme Court. Today, as the climate crisis worsens and hurricanes ravage my home state of Florida, they are still with us, using their voices to weigh in on the importance of our rights to access justice and to a livable climate."
"The recent win in Held v. State of Montana and historic settlement in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation showed the world that young people's voices, my voice, and legal action are not just symbolic, but they hold governments accountable to protect our constitutional rights," Levi added. "Now, it's our turn to be heard!"
The lawmakers weren't alone in formally supporting the young climate advocates on Monday. Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association filed another brief that takes aim at the government's use of mandamus—a court order directing a lower entity to perform official duties—to deny the Juliana youth a trial.
"The government's sole argument to justify mandamus is the Department of Justice's past and anticipated future litigation expenses associated with going to trial. That argument is firmly foreclosed by precedent," the groups argued. "And even if it wasn't foreclosed by precedent, the argument trivializes the extraordinary nature of mandamus and would improperly circumvent the final judgment rule."
The organizations urged the high court to grant certiorari to uphold the mandamus standard set out in Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2004. Plaintiff Miko V. said Monday that "I'm incredibly grateful to Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association for standing with us in our fight for justice."
"We're not asking for special treatment; we're demanding the right to access justice, as our constitutional democracy guarantees," Miko stressed. "The recent victory in Held v. State of Montana demonstrates the power of youth-led legal action, and the urgent need for courts to recognize that our generation has the right to hold our government accountable. Every day that the government prevents us from presenting our case, we all lose more ground in the fight for a livable future. It's time for the judiciary to open the courthouse doors and allow us a fair trial."
The briefs came just a week before Big Oil-backed Trump's second inauguration and on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected attempts by fossil fuel giants to quash a Hawaiian municipality's lawsuit that aims to hold the climate polluters accountable, in line with justices' previous decisions. Dozens of U.S. state and local governments have filed similar suits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Juliana Plaintiffs Urge Supreme Court to Reverse Trump Judges' Dismissal of Key Climate Case
"This case is about addressing the climate crisis and protecting our fundamental rights like our right to life and freedom. However, it is also about ensuring access to justice," said one plaintiff.
Sep 12, 2024
Demanding that the U.S. Supreme Court correct "an egregious error" by the Trump-appointed judges who dismissed their landmark case in May, the 21 plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States on Thursday filed a petition asking the high court to take action that would require the lower judicial panel to "follow the rule of law and precedent."
The petition was announced by Our Children's Trust, the legal group that has represented the Juliana plaintiffs for nearly a decade since they filed their lawsuit asserting that the government's support for fossil fuel extraction and other actions have "violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
The group asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus—a legal tool which can be used to "confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power," according to the Department of Justice.
The maneuver is the same one that was used repeatedly by the DOJ under three different presidents since Juliana was first filed in 2015, with the Biden administration successfully dismissing the case this year.
By adhering to the DOJ's writ of mandamus and blocking a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who late last year had decided in favor of giving the plaintiffs a court trial, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel "did not follow the rule of law and precedent, and flagrantly disregarded the limits Congress and the Supreme Court placed on its jurisdiction," said Our Children's Trust on Thursday.
"Today, I'm asking the Supreme Court to correct the 9th Circuit's abuse of the rules meant to protect our ability as young citizens to bring cases against our government. The rule of law and our constitutional democracy depend on it," said one plaintiff named Avery. "If you care about justice, fundamental rights, and the preservation of our democracy, you care about Juliana. This case is about addressing the climate crisis and protecting our fundamental rights like our right to life and freedom. However, it is also about ensuring access to justice. I urge the Supreme Court to make a decision that will make their children, grandchildren, and all future generations proud. Let us go to trial."
Our Children's Trust noted that the panel of judges appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump attempted to "obscure" their ruling in May "by issuing a brief, unpublished order."
"Such actions undermine the integrity of the judiciary and threaten the fairness of the legal process for citizen litigants who are not wielding the power of the federal government's resources," the group said.
The 9th Circuit ruling also disregarded the Supreme Court's mandatory conditions for a writ of mandamus, which can only be granted if there is no other way to get relief from a "significant harm" caused by a lower court and if the right to relief is "clear and indisputable."
"The DOJ's petition did not even address or come close to meeting these criteria," said Our Children's Trust.
The group noted that the federal government's efforts to block a case in which young people are claiming the right to be protected from planetary heating and from diseases and premature death caused by pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure have gone on so long that the case's youngest plaintiff, who was eight when Juliana was filed, "can now drive and has spent more than half his life as a plaintiff waiting for trial in the face of the most aggressive litigation tactics ever to come out of the Department of Justice."
In federal civil cases that go to trial, a trial begins an average of 27 months from the case's first filing. Juliana was filed 109 months ago.
The writ of mandamus petition is necessary to correct the 9th Circuit's "overreach," said chief legal counsel Julia Olson. "Upholding these principles of fair process is vital for maintaining trust in our judicial system, regardless of what the justices may think about the merits of the case."
The petition was filed a day after Our Children's Trust sent a letter to the Biden administration asking officials to engage in meaningful settlement talks. Nearly 350,000 people signed petitions asking the administration to meet the demand, and the signatures were delivered Wednesday by 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben and Jerome Foster II, the youngest ever White House environmental justice adviser.
"Our ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution harming our planet and our children are fundamental freedoms we risk losing," said McKibben, calling on the Biden administration to take the opportunity "to show [its] commitment to climate action, to youth, and to the future!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tragic and Unjust': Trump Judges Grant Biden DOJ Request to Toss Youth Climate Case
"We will keep fighting for climate justice," said one plaintiff, "but this is another dark day for protecting young people from climate harm imposed by their government."
May 02, 2024
A panel of three Trump-appointed judges on Wednesday granted the Biden Justice Department's request to have a landmark youth climate case dismissed, another setback for a long-running effort to hold the U.S. government accountable for damaging the planet and violating the rights of younger generations.
The order handed down by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel instructs an Oregon district court to toss Juliana v. United States for lack of standing, siding with the Justice Department's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus—which the DOJ itself describes as "an extraordinary remedy" that "should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance."
Julia Olson, co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, a public interest law firm backing the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement Wednesday that "the Biden administration was wrong to use an emergency measure to stop youth plaintiffs from having their day in court."
"The real emergency is the climate emergency," said Olson. "This emergency was not created by these young people, who have just been stripped of their fundamental constitutional rights by one of the highest courts in our country. Children deserve access to justice."
Calling the 9th Circuit decision "tragic and unjust" and "wrong on the law," Olson said the legal fight is "not over" and stressed that President Joe Biden "can still make this right by coming to the settlement table."
"We will keep fighting for climate justice, but this is another dark day for protecting young people from climate harm imposed by their government."
Juliana v. United States was brought in 2015 by 21 young Americans who argued the federal government has violated their "fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property" by continuing to allow the extraction of fossil fuels despite knowing their central role in destructive planetary heating.
Three consecutive administrations have worked aggressively to prevent a trial, deploying emergency legal tactics to delay and derail the youth-led case even as climate impacts became increasingly devastating in the U.S. and around the world.
Mat dos Santos, general counsel of Our Children's Trust, warned last month that "it's a mistake" for the Biden administration to "take this position in an election year, especially when young voters continue to be more and more disenchanted with the current administration and the permitting of big fossil fuel projects."
"This is an opportunity for the administration to do right by young people," he added.
Earlier this year, just before parties to the case were set to receive trial dates from a federal judge in Oregon, the Biden Justice Department filed a motion to stay the case and then another to have it tossed, drawing outrage from the youth plaintiffs. Dozens of members of Congress have weighed in on the side of the plaintiffs, arguing they should be allowed a trial to present their arguments and evidence.
Avery McRae, one of the plaintiffs, said in response to the 9th Circuit order on Wednesday that "every time we get a decision as devastating as this one, I lose more and more hope that my country is as democratic as it says it is."
"I have been pleading for my government to hear our case since I was 10 years old, and I am now nearly 19," said McRae. "A functioning democracy would not make a child beg for their rights to be protected in the courts, just to be ignored nearly a decade later. I am fed up with the continuous attempts to squash this case and silence our voices."
Another plaintiff, Nathan Baring, said that "we will keep fighting for climate justice, but this is another dark day for protecting young people from climate harm imposed by their government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular