A federal appeals court has dismissed a long-running lawsuit over climate change that a group of children in Oregon filed against the US government in 2015, invoking a rarely used judicial emergency measure to halt the case.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is a setback for the movement seeking to hold the federal government and states accountable for failing to limit the effects of climate change. Several groups of children have filed suits claiming that fossil fuel policies violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.
A second case, Genesis B. v. US EPA (2:23-cv-10345), filed by young Californians in December 2023, is pending. At least four other cases are active in which children sued their state for failing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.
The US Justice Department had petitioned the 9th Circuit for a writ of mandamus to effectively end the Juliana v. US case (24-684) in Oregon before it would go to trial.
The appeals court ruled in 2020 that the 21 children had no standing to sue the government over climate change and sent the case back to a district court for dismissal.
However, US District Judge Ann Aiken in December 2023 instead allowed the case to be amended. In doing so, the judge cited a 2021 US Supreme Court decision in a separate case, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (19-968), finding that a past student of a public college had standing to continue to seek nominal, symbolic damages for free speech violations at the college. Thus, the judge reasoned that the law had changed, which relieves district courts from previous mandates.
The US government again moved to dismiss the case, a motion the appeals court granted in a May 1 decision voiding Aiken's order.
"The Juliana plaintiffs do not seek damages but seek only prospective relief. Nothing in Uzuegbunam changed the law with respect to prospective relief," three judges on the appeals court reasoned.
The appeals court also reiterated that the children's alleged injuries from climate change need to be addressed by lawmakers, not the judicial system. Courts cannot "step into the shoes of the political branches to provide the relief the Juliana plaintiffs sought," the judges wrote in their new order.
Julia Olson, the attorney representing the 21 children, said the ruling could have a chilling effect on other cases.
"This is a tragic and unjust ruling, but it is not over," Olson said in a statement. "President Biden can still make this right by coming to the settlement table. And the full 9th Circuit can correct this mistake."
The federal appeals court based in Portland, Ore., is the country's largest, with 29 active judges.
The attorneys for the California plaintiffs in Genesis v. US EPA were in court on April 29 to argue against the EPA's motion to dismiss that case. The lawsuit, handled by the same public interest law firm representing the Juliana children, is awaiting a ruling from a district court on whether the litigation can proceed.
In seeking to have the California case thrown out, the EPA has, among other things, pointed to the 2020 9th Circuit ruling saying the children lack standing to take the case to trial.
Judges Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson and Eric Miller handed down the latest 9th Circuit ruling.