Juliana v. United States
217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life, and the public trust doctrine, which obligates the sovereign to protect essential natural resources, applies to the federal government. Consequently, a lawsuit alleging the government's affirmative actions promoting fossil fuels violate these rights presents a justiciable controversy and states a claim for relief.
Facts:
- For over fifty years, the United States government and its agencies have been aware that carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system.
- Despite this knowledge, the federal government has continued to permit, encourage, and enable the exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels.
- These government actions include leasing public lands for oil, gas, and coal extraction, providing tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, and permitting the import and export of fossil fuels.
- As a result of these policies, the United States has been responsible for over 25% of global CO2 emissions between 1751 and 2014, causing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to escalate to unprecedented levels.
- A group of young people, led by Kelsey Juliana, have suffered specific, ongoing harms allegedly caused by climate change.
- These harms include damage to property from floods, droughts, and wildfires; negative health effects such as aggravated asthma; and harm to their families' economic livelihoods, such as farming and access to traditional food sources like wild salmon.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of youth plaintiffs, Earth Guardians, and Dr. James Hansen sued the United States, the President, and numerous executive agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (a federal trial court).
- The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute were granted leave to intervene as defendants.
- The defendants and intervenors filed motions to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (standing and political question) and for failure to state a claim.
- Magistrate Judge Coffin issued a Findings and Recommendation (F & R) recommending that the motions to dismiss be denied.
- Defendants and intervenors filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's F & R, bringing the matter before Judge Aiken for de novo review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs against the federal government, alleging that the government's actions promoting fossil fuel use and contributing to climate change violate their fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause and the public trust doctrine, present a justiciable controversy and state a claim upon which relief can be granted?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Aiken
Yes. A lawsuit against the federal government for its role in causing climate change is justiciable and states a valid claim, as the Constitution protects a fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life. First, the case does not present a non-justiciable political question because it involves the core judicial function of determining whether the government has violated citizens' constitutional rights, not second-guessing policy decisions textually committed to other branches. Second, the plaintiffs have standing because they have alleged concrete, particularized, and imminent injuries (e.g., property damage, health problems) that are fairly traceable to the government's substantial contribution to global CO2 emissions and are likely to be redressed by a court order compelling the government to create a remedial plan. Third, the complaint states a claim for a violation of substantive due process by alleging infringement of the fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life. It also sufficiently pleads a 'danger creation' claim, alleging the government's affirmative actions created the climate crisis and that it acted with deliberate indifference to the known dangers. Finally, the public trust doctrine, which requires the sovereign to protect vital natural resources for the public, applies to the federal government and is not displaced by federal environmental statutes; this claim is cognizable as a substantive due process right under the Fifth Amendment.
Analysis:
This landmark decision is significant for being one of the first to hold that constitutional claims related to climate change against the federal government are justiciable. By recognizing a novel fundamental right to a stable climate system under substantive due process, the court dramatically lowered the barrier for future environmental litigation based on constitutional, rather than statutory, grounds. The ruling's affirmation that the public trust doctrine applies to the federal government and is not displaced by existing statutes like the Clean Air Act creates a powerful new avenue for challenging federal environmental policy. This precedent challenges the traditional deference courts have shown to the political branches on climate policy and empowers citizens to hold the government accountable for actions that contribute to climate change.
