Juliana v. United States
Case Summary
The League of Women Voters of the United States and the League of Women Voters of Oregon filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs seeking to block a liquified natural gas export terminal and an order for the federal government to prepare a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions. The plaintiffs, a group of young Americans under the age of 21, argued that by promoting the export and production of fossil fuels, and failing to mitigate climate change, the government violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to a stable climate system and the Public Trust Doctrine.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorizes the US Department of Energy to regulate the transportation of oil and natural gas in interstate commerce and regulate Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals, which are used to import and export natural gas. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy’s decision to approve the construction of an LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon on August 12, 2015.
The plaintiffs, a group of young Americans, all under the age of 21 at the time of filing, argued that the US government’s continued support for fossil fuel extraction and export, and failure to mitigate climate change, exemplified by its approval of the LNG terminal, violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments, as well as the Public Trust Doctrine. The plaintiffs asserted the government, with full knowledge of anthropogenic climate change’s existence and consequences, had injured them by failing to use its powers over federal lands and interstate commerce to prevent it.
Based upon this theory, the plaintiffs stated the federal government’s failure to reduce carbon emissions and limit climate change harmed the atmosphere and climate system, the proper functioning of which was vital to protecting their life, liberty, and property. Furthermore, because the federal government holds the nation’s air, oceans, shoreline, and wildlife in public trust, its failure to mitigate climate change and reduce fossil fuel consumption and production violated that duty, given the effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions on the environment.
Finally, the plaintiffs argued their Ninth Amendment rights had been violated, asserting Americans possessed an implicit, unenumerated right to be sustained by the nation’s natural systems, including its climate.
The plaintiffs asked the court to revoke the permit for the LNG terminal, declare Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act unconstitutional, and order the defendants to prepare and implement a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to stabilize the climate system.
After multiple rounds of briefing, mid-case appeals, and attempts to dismiss the case before trial, on October 15, 2018, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On January 17, 2020, in a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case to be dismissed because the plaintiffs lacked standing. The panel acknowledged that while climate change was harmful and real, the courts could not implement the policy remedy the plaintiffs requested. Instead, the executive and legislative branches were the appropriate places to seek policy solutions for climate change.
The plaintiffs then requested a full court review by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 2, 2020. On March 12, 2020, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the League of Women Voters of Oregon, and the National Children’s Campaign filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. The brief argued the plaintiffs had fundamental rights that were being violated by the government’s failure to address climate change. Given that many of the plaintiffs were minors with no voting rights, judicial intervention was needed to protect them from its harmful consequences. Furthermore, the brief argued that the three-judge panel’s opinion contradicted precedent supporting courts’ power to prevent the violation of children’s fundamental rights and narrowed the power of future courts to protect children.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for full court review on February 10, 2021. The plaintiffs requested leave to file a second amended complaint on March 9, 2021. The District Court subsequently ordered the parties to attend a settlement conference on May 13, 2021. On November 2, 2021, the parties reported they were unable to reach a settlement.
The League was represented by the Crag Law Center in this case.
LWV Timeline
Plaintiffs file their complaint
Plaintiffs, a group of young Americans under the age of 21, file a lawsuit alleging the United States government had violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments, as well as the Public Trust Doctrine, by failing to mitigate climate change while having full knowledge of its harmful effects.
The court partially denies defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment
After multiple rounds of briefing, interlocutory appeals, and arguments for and against dismissal of the case, the court partially denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding the defendant failed to satisfy their burden of proof.
The Supreme Court denies certiorari
The United States Supreme Court denies the defendants’ request for a stay, stating they could request relief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instead.
The Ninth Circuit orders the case to be dismissed
After further briefing and oral argument, on a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remands the case to the District Court and orders it to be dismissed for a lack of standing.
Plaintiffs request en banc review of panel’s decision
The plaintiffs file a petition for en banc review of the panel’s decision. The plaintiffs argued the panel’s decision contravened several precedents on judicial remedies and conflated standing and political question doctrine.
The League files its amicus brief
The League of Women Voters of the United States, the League of Women Voters of Oregon, and the National Children’s Campaign file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing their fundamental rights were being violated by the government’s failure to address climate change and that judicial intervention was needed.