Juliana v. United States

They call for the government to offer “both declaratory and injunctive relief for their claim—specifically, a declaration of the federal government's fiduciary role in preserving the atmosphere and an injunction of its actions which contravene that role.” The case is an example of an area of environmental law referred to as "atmospheric trust litigation", a concept based on the public trust doctrine and international responsibility related to natural resources.

[8] Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon, who had been studying the concept of the public trust doctrine and established the idea of "Atmospheric Trust Litigation" to take legal action to make governments responsible for actions related to climate change.

In that suit, twelve states sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases and sought relief.

[11] The case was filed against President Barack Obama and several agencies within the executive branch, and sought confirmation that their constitutional and public trust rights had been violated by the government's actions, and sought an order to enjoin the defendants from continued violation of their rights and to develop a plan to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued that there was "no constitutional right to a pollution-free environment", and that the court system was not the proper venue to effect such changes.

[22] According to Michael Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, "this decision goes further than any other court ever has in declaring a fundamental obligation of government to prevent dangerous climate change",[22] and Judge Aiken's decision that there might be a constitutional right to a sound environment was the first such ruling ever from a federal court.

[22] Following the 2016 election, the federal defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's complaint on January 13, 2017, one week before President Obama left office.

[20] The National Association of Manufacturers, one of the fossil fuel groups, said that "as the dynamics have changed over the last several months, we no longer feel that our participation in this case is needed to safeguard industry and our workers".

[26] In early June 2017, the Department of Justice filed a motion requesting that Judge Aiken rule on its prior motion for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit of Judge Aiken's November 2016 decision on the justiciability of the plaintiffs' claims, by June 9 or the department would directly seek a writ of mandamus regarding the issue in the Ninth Circuit.

[32] On March 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the requested writ of mandamus in a decision by Judge Thomas.

On July 30, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a brief order, denying the government's request for a stay as premature but expressing skepticism about the lawsuit, as well as noting that the breadth of the plaintiffs' claims was "striking" and requesting that the District Court issue a prompt ruling on the government's motions challenging the overall justiciability of those claims.

"[43][44] Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court granted the stay the next day, pending receipt of a response to the government's brief from the plaintiffs.

[45][42][46] An environmental law professor at UCLA opined, with regard to this stay, "It's certainly a signal that the court is uncomfortable with the underlying legal theory of the Juliana case.

[48][49] In its order, the court noted that, even though the Ninth Circuit had already denied the government's request for relief twice, the reasons supporting its denials on the prior occasions "are, to a large extent, no longer pertinent".

[50] The order was issued without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the case could return to the Supreme Court again prior to trial, depending upon the actions taken by the Ninth Circuit.

[57] The government's appeal brief again challenged the unique constitutional and statutory rulings on standing, fundamental rights, and the public trust doctrine made by the district court.

[63] The Ninth Circuit scheduled oral argument on the appeal for the week of June 3, 2019 in Portland,[64] and the appeal was ultimately heard on June 4 in front of a different three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of Mary H. Murguia, Andrew D. Hurwitz, and Josephine Staton (sitting by designation), all of whom were appointed to the bench by President Obama.

[65] Some legal experts believed that the interlocutory appeal "could (and, indeed, likely will) bring this litigation to an end" due to the Supreme Court's already-expressed skepticism.

Writing for the majority, Judge Hurwitz wrote that "it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs' requested remedial plan.

As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.

"[66] In dissent, Judge Staton characterized the majority as shirking its judicial responsibility to rectify a grave constitutional wrong in the manner the U.S. Supreme Court laudably did in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, stating, "My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.

"[68][69][70][71][72] Lawyers for the plaintiffs stated their intent to appeal this dismissal to the full Ninth Circuit sitting en banc,[66][73] and subsequently filed such a petition.

[4] The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled on May 1, 2024, that the plaintiffs lacked standing and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case with no option to amend their filings.

[88] Similarly, a 2012 lawsuit brought by six Alaskan youths against the state of Alaska that took the public trust doctrine approach (that the state has an affirmative duty to protect public trust assets from harm) was rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court in 2014 on the grounds that this issue was too general and one for the political branches to decide, not the judiciary.

[91][92] On September 23, 2019, Greta Thunberg, who had inspired the school strikes for climate movement, and 15 other children filed a legal complaint under the optional "Human Rights" protocol to the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child against the five signatory nations with the most carbon emissions: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey (who combined account for just over 6.1% of global emissions).

[102] In 2023 a District Court ruled that the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions was a violation of the "Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment and is facially unconstitutional".