Quick summary:
• 43 members of Congress have submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of 21 youth plaintiffs in the Juliana v. United States climate case.
• The case, filed in 2015, argues that the U.S. government’s fossil fuel policies violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
• The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all fought to dismiss the case, with a 9th Circuit panel agreeing to the Biden administration’s request to dismiss it last year.
• The youth plaintiffs are now asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether the courts can declare government policies unconstitutional under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
• The lawmakers’ brief argues that the 9th Circuit’s dismissal undermines the Declaratory Judgment Act and limits citizens’ ability to hold the government accountable for harm.
• Recent legal victories in youth-led climate cases, such as Held v. State of Montana, have bolstered the plaintiffs’ case, showing that courts can hold governments accountable for protecting constitutional rights.
• Youth plaintiffs and supporters emphasize the urgency of climate action and the need for judicial intervention to secure a livable future for future generations.
In a significant development for climate litigation, 43 members of Congress have submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting the 21 youth plaintiffs in the landmark case Juliana v. United States. This case, initiated in August 2015, asserts that the federal government’s policies promoting fossil fuels violate the constitutional rights of young Americans by contributing to climate change.
The youth plaintiffs, represented by the nonprofit organization Our Children’s Trust, have faced continuous opposition from the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. In May 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with a panel appointed by President Donald Trump, granted a request from President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice to dismiss the case. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ initial intervention request in November, their attorneys filed a new petition in December, arguing that federal courts are empowered by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) to resolve disputes where citizens are personally injured by government policies.
The amicus brief, led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), contends that the 9th Circuit’s dismissal lacks legal basis and undermines the DJA, a pivotal remedial statute enacted by Congress. The lawmakers urge the Supreme Court to clarify that declaratory relief under the DJA meets the Article III redressability requirement, emphasizing that Congress expressly authorized such relief “whether or not further relief is or could be sought.”
Levi D., the youngest plaintiff at 17, expressed appreciation for the congressional support: “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.” He highlighted the worsening climate crisis and recent extreme weather events in his home state of Florida as evidence of the urgent need for judicial action.
The lawmakers’ brief is bolstered by additional support from Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, who filed a separate brief challenging the government’s use of mandamus—a court order directing a lower entity to perform official duties—to prevent the Juliana youth from obtaining a trial. They argue that the Department of Justice’s justification, centered on litigation expenses, is insufficient and trivializes the extraordinary nature of mandamus.
This surge of support comes shortly before President Donald Trump’s second inauguration and coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of fossil fuel companies’ attempts to dismiss a Hawaiian municipality’s lawsuit seeking to hold climate polluters accountable. These developments underscore a growing recognition of the judiciary’s role in addressing climate-related grievances.
The youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States continue to advocate for their right to a fair trial, emphasizing the judiciary’s responsibility to address constitutional questions when government actions harm citizens. As plaintiff Miko V. stated, “We’re not asking for special treatment; we’re demanding the right to access justice, as our constitutional democracy guarantees.”
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for climate litigation and the extent to which citizens can hold their government accountable for policies contributing to climate change. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case remains pending, with implications that could resonate across future generations.
COMMENTS