staton, j hon

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton</a>Josephine Laura Staton (born 1961) is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge" title="United States federal judge" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">United States District Judge</a> of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California" title="United States District Court for the Central District of California" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">United States District Court for the Central District of California</a>.
<div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table;"><ul style="list-style-image: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Early_life_and_education" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Early life and education</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Professional_career" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2Professional career</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Federal_judicial_service" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3Federal judicial service</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Notable_cases" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4Notable cases</a><ul style="list-style-image: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Friedrichs_v.California_Teachers_Association" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4.1Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Afghan_Family_Travel_Ban_Case" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4.2Afghan Family Travel Ban Case</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Constitutionality_of_CFPB" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4.3Constitutionality of CFPB</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Kids'Climate_Change_Case" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4.4Kids' Climate Change Case</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Coronavirus_Quarantine_Case" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4.5Coronavirus Quarantine Case</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#Personal_life" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5Personal life</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#External_links" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">7External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Early life and education[</h2>Born in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.Louis,Missouri" class="mw-redirect" title="St. Louis, Missouri" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">St. Louis, Missouri</a>, Staton graduated from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindbergh_High_School(St.Louis,Missouri)" class="mw-redirect" title="Lindbergh High School (St. Louis, Missouri)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Lindbergh High School</a>, earned a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts" title="Bachelor of Arts" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Bachelor of Arts</a> degree in 1983 from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jewell_College" title="William Jewell College" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">William Jewell College</a> and obtained a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor" title="Juris Doctor" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Juris Doctor</a> in 1986 from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School" title="Harvard Law School" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Harvard Law School</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-whgov_20100204-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-OVGuide-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a> From 1986 until 1987, Staton was a law clerk for Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R.Gibson" title="John R. Gibson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">John R. Gibson</a> on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-whgov_20100204-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-ocregister_20100621-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[4]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-fjc.gov-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Professional career[</h2>From 1987 until 2002, Staton was an attorney with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco" title="San Francisco" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">San Francisco</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Beach" class="mw-redirect" title="Newport Beach" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Newport Beach</a> offices of the law firm <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison%26_Foerster" title="Morrison & Foerster" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Morrison & Foerster</a>, first as an associate (1987–1994) and then as a partner (1995–2002).<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-whgov_20100204-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a> In 2002, Staton became a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="Superior Court" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Superior Court</a> judge in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County,California" title="Orange County, California" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Orange County, California</a>, based in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana,California" title="Santa Ana, California" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Santa Ana</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-whgov_20100204-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a> She was appointed to the position by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_California" title="Governor of California" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Governor</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis" title="Gray Davis" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Gray Davis</a> to fill the vacancy created when Judge Richard D. Fybel was elevated to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Courts_of_Appeal" title="California Courts of Appeal" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">California Court of Appeal</a> in Orange County.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-met_20021021-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-fjc.gov-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Federal judicial service[</h2>On February 4, 2010, President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Obama</a> nominated Staton to fill the vacancy in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California" title="United States District Court for the Central District of California" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Central District</a> created by Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicemarie_Stotler" class="mw-redirect" title="Alicemarie Stotler" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Alicemarie Stotler</a> taking <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_status" title="Senior status" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">senior status</a> in January 2009.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a> On March 18, 2010, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary" title="United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary</a> reported Staton's nomination to the full Senate, which unanimously confirmed Staton on June 21, 2010, in a voice vote.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[8]</a> She received her commission on June 22, 2010. Staton was appointed to the bench under the name of Josephine Staton Tucker and served under that name until September 20, 2013.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-fjc.gov-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Notable cases[</h2><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephine_Staton&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a>]</h3>Judge Staton presided over a challenge brought by several Orange County public school teachers to the California Teachers Union's exclusive bargaining system on constitutional grounds. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals" class="mw-redirect" title="9th Circuit Court of Appeals" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">9th Circuit Court of Appeals</a> affirmed her ruling in favor of the teachers union,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[9]</a> and this ruling was upheld by an evenly divided <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. Supreme Court" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">U.S. Supreme Court</a> in a 4-4 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam" class="mw-redirect" title="Per curiam" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">per curiam</a> decision in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrichs_v.California_Teachers_Ass%27n" class="mw-redirect" title="Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[10]</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Scalia" class="mw-redirect" title="Justice Scalia" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Justice Scalia</a> had been the expected 5th vote to overturn the controlling 1977 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abood" class="mw-redirect" title="Abood" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Abood</a> decision, but his 2016 death shortly after the case was argued meant there was a deadlocked decision.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a> Subsequently, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abood" class="mw-redirect" title="Abood" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Abood</a> was overturned in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v.AFSCME" title="Janus v. AFSCME" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Janus v. AFSCME</a> in 2018, which effectively overturned Judge Staton's ruling in Friedrichs.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[12]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Afghan Family Travel Ban Case[</h3>In the wake of President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Donald Trump</a>'s controversial <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769" title="Executive Order 13769" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Executive Order 13769</a> restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, certain individuals with valid U.S. visas continued to be detained at borders and airports despite a nationwide temporary restraining order having been issued by U.S. District Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robart" title="James Robart" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">James Robart</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v.Trump" title="Washington v. Trump" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Washington v. Trump</a>. In a case that drew international attention, Judge Staton issued an emergency <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_restraining_order" class="mw-redirect" title="Temporary restraining order" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">temporary restraining order</a> on March 4, 2017, to prevent an Afghan family from being separated—and the wife and three small children sent to a detention facility in Texas—after all five had arrived at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport" title="Los Angeles International Airport" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Los Angeles International Airport</a> with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Immigrant_Visa" title="Special Immigrant Visa" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Special Immigrant Visas</a> and were detained for almost two days without access to counsel.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[13]</a> Judge Staton held a hearing on March 6, 2017, after which the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security" class="mw-redirect" title="Department of Homeland Security" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Department of Homeland Security</a> released the family for provisional resettlement in Washington state <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-auto-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a> and ultimately granted them permanent residency status.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[15]</a> Special immigrant visas were created for citizens from Iraq and Afghanistan whose lives were at risk because they had worked for the U.S. military or government, and the visa requires intense State Department vetting and interviews before being approved. At the hearing it was revealed that the visas had been issued because the father had worked for the U.S. military in Afghanistan for more than 10 years and had received death threats from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban" title="Taliban" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Taliban</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-auto-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[14]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Constitutionality of CFPB[</h3>In a case involving a long-running investigation by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau" title="Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a> (CFPB) into the fraudulent consumer debt relief practices of Morgan Drexen and its proxy law firm, Judge Staton ruled that the CFPB was a constitutionally formed federal bureau.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[16]</a> The defendant had argued that the CFPB violated constitutional separation of powers because it was headed by a single Director who exercises substantial executive power but can only be removed by the President for cause. Judge Staton cited the Supreme Court decision in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_v.Olson" title="Morrison v. Olson" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Morrison v. Olson</a> to hold that the for-cause removal restriction protecting the CFPB’s Director does not "impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty" to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Prior to the ruling, a three judge panel of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals" class="mw-redirect" title="DC Circuit Court of Appeals" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">DC Circuit Court of Appeals</a> had found the CFPB's structure unconstitutional in a ruling written by then-Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh" title="Brett Kavanaugh" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Brett Kavanaugh</a>, but an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc" title="En banc" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">en banc</a> decision by the DC Circuit reversed that decision and found the CFPB to be constitutional.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[17]</a> Judge Staton's ruling was unanimously affirmed by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals" class="mw-redirect" title="9th Circuit Court of Appeals" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">9th Circuit Court of Appeals</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[18]</a> The case, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_v.Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau" title="Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a>, was argued before the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="U. S. Supreme Court" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">U. S. Supreme Court</a> on March 3, 2020.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-19" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[19]</a> On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that the CFPB structure, with a sole director that could only be terminated for cause, was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers, vacating the lower court judgement and remanding the case for review. The Court found that the statute concerning the director of the CFPB was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability" title="Severability" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">severable</a> from the rest of the statute establishing the agency, and thus "The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-cnbc_decision-20" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[20]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;">Kids' Climate Change Case[</h3>On January 17, 2020, on a 2-1 vote, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed an Oregon District Court ruling in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States" title="Juliana v. United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Juliana, et al. v. United States of America</a>, et al, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_justice" title="Climate justice" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">climate justice</a>-based <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit" title="Lawsuit" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">lawsuit</a> filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiuhtezcatl_Martinez" title="Xiuhtezcatl Martinez" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Xiuhtezcatl Martinez</a> against the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States" title="Federal government of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">United States</a> and several of its <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States#Executive_branch" title="Federal government of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">executive branch</a> positions and officers, formerly including President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Barack Obama</a> and currently, President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Donald Trump</a>. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and future generations, sought relief under the U.S. Constitution for longstanding U.S. governmental policy contributing to global climate disruption and caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The majority agreed that the government had not rebutted the plaintiffs' science-based allegations of a looming climate catastrophe, but found a lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs, with Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_D.Hurwitz" title="Andrew D. Hurwitz" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Andrew D. Hurwitz</a> holding 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."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[21]</a>In dissent, Judge Staton, sitting on the 9th Circuit panel by designation, characterized the majority as shirking its judicial responsibility to rectify a grave constitutional wrong in the manner the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. Supreme Court" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">U.S. Supreme Court</a> laudably did in its landmark <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v.Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Brown v. Board of Education</a> decision, stating, "My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[22]</a> She further argued, "No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[23]</a> In an analogy from her impassioned dissent that became widely cited in the news media,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[24]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[25]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[26]</a> Judge Staton stated that "[i]n these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response -- yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[27]</a> The plaintiffs in Juliana subsequently requested a full <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc" title="En banc" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">en banc</a> review by the 9th Circuit of the panel's decision, which petition is currently pending before the 9th Circuit.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[28]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Coronavirus Quarantine Case[</h3>In a case that drew national media attention, Judge Staton issued a temporary restraining order at the request of the City of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Mesa" class="mw-redirect" title="Costa Mesa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Costa Mesa</a> on February 21, 2020, in response to a hasty plan by the State of California and the U.S. federal government to ship dozens of patients testing positive for coronavirus, then quarantined at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Air_Force_Base" title="Travis Air Force Base" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Travis Air Force Base</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solano_County" class="mw-redirect" title="Solano County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Solano County</a>, to a former assisted living center in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County,California" title="Orange County, California" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Orange County, California</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[29]</a> Judge Staton scheduled an expedited hearing for the following Monday, after which she continued the TRO in place pending a showing by the State of California as to its plan to house the patients in a densely populated part of the county. Prior to the hearing, the federal government had planned to ship the non-California resident former passengers of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Princess(ship)" title="Diamond Princess (ship)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Diamond Princess</a> cruise ship from Travis to a former army base in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anniston,Alabama" title="Anniston, Alabama" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Anniston, Alabama</a>, but Governor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Ivey" title="Kay Ivey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Kay Ivey</a> of Alabama lobbied <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Trump" class="mw-redirect" title="President Trump" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">President Trump</a> to include them in the group to be sent to Orange County, California, instead.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[30]</a> At the hearing it became apparent that neither the State of California nor the Federal Government had developed a rationale for the plan,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[31]</a> so the TRO was continued for another week to allow the authorities to do so. Prior to the next scheduled hearing, as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic" title="COVID-19 pandemic" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">COVID-19 pandemic</a> evolved, the state and federal governments withdrew their plan to house the Travis patients at the Fairview Developmental Center location.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[32]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Personal life[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josephine_Staton&action=edit&section=10&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Personal life" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a>]</h2>Judge Staton is married to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Prell&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Owen Prell (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Owen Prell</a>, a lawyer and writer.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[33]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton#cite_note-34" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[34]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">References</h2>
FAIL<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/juliana-v-united-states-tossed-2644863188.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/juliana-v-united-states-tossed-2644863188.html</a>
An  appeals court tossed out the landmark youth climate lawsuit <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Juliana v. United States</a> Friday, arguing that the courts are not the place to resolve the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">climate crisis</a>.<div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-1" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/juliana-v-united-states-tossed-2644863188.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" data-id="1" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem1">The three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the 21 young plaintiffs that the U.S. government had actively contributed to climate change by supporting a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">fossil-fuel</a> based economy and that the young people had been injured by its actions, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/17/climate-change-lawsuit-activists-lose-appeal-sue-us-" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">The Guardian explained</a>. However, the majority ruled that the courts did not have the power to order a plan for government action to address the crisis, as the 12-to-23-year-old plaintiffs had requested."Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power," Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote in the court's <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/01/17/18-36082.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">opinion</a>. "Rather, the plaintiffs' impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government."[twt]The  decision raises the question of where young people can turn to ensure their futures are protected.</div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-2" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/juliana-v-united-states-tossed-2644863188.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" data-id="2" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem2">"The idea that their only recourse is to go to the very branches of government that are violating their rights when half of them can't even vote is a preposterous notion," the young people's lead lawyer Julia Olson told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/climate/juliana-climate-case.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">The New York Times</a>.In her dissent, Judge Josephine L. Staton agreed, criticizing her colleagues for "throw[ing] up their hands.""Where is the hope in today's decision?" she wrote. "Plaintiffs' claims are based on science, specifically, an impending point of no return. If plaintiffs' fears, backed by the government's own studies, prove true, history will not judge us kindly. When the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors, and storms ravage everything between, those remaining will ask: Why did so many do so little?"The lawsuit was filed in 2015 by the 21 plaintiffs with the support of the nonprofit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/our-childrens-trust" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Our Children's Trust</a>, according to <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2020/01/17/juliana-ninth-circuit-youth-climate-lawsuit/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Climate Liability News</a>. It argues that by supporting a fossil-fuel based economy despite evidence it was contributing to climate change, the federal government violated the public trust and the young plaintiffs' constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.For example, plaintiff Levi Draheim, 12, has had to repeatedly evacuate his home in Satellite Beach, Florida because of more extreme storms, according to The Guardian. Jaime Butler, 19, has been separated from her home and relatives in Navajo Nation because of water insecurity.</div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-3" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/juliana-v-united-states-tossed-2644863188.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" data-id="3" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem3" style="">The federal government has tried to dismiss the case several times since it was filed, according to Climate Liability News. And Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark told The New York Times that the government was "pleased with the outcome" of Friday's decision.However, Our Children's Trust and the plaintiffs have vowed to keep fighting and to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the decision, the group announced in a <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5e22508873d1bc4c30fad90d/1579307146820/Juliana+Press+Release+1-17-20.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">press release</a>."We will continue this case because only the courts can help us," Draheim said. "We brought this lawsuit to secure our liberties and protect our lives and our homes. Much like the civil rights cases, we firmly believe the courts can vindicate our constitutional rights and we will not stop until we get a decision that says so."If the full Ninth Circle refuses to hear the case, the group would then have to appeal to the Supreme Court, Climate Liability News explained.==<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States</a>Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit" title="Lawsuit" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">lawsuit</a> filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States" title="Federal government of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">United States</a> and several <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States#Executive_branch" title="Federal government of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">executive branch</a> officials. The plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Children%27s_Trust" title="Our Children's Trust" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Our Children's Trust</a>, include <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiuhtezcatl_Martinez" title="Xiuhtezcatl Martinez" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Xiuhtezcatl Martinez</a>, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen" title="James Hansen" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">James Hansen</a> as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups intervened as defendants, but were later dropped at their request following the 2016 presidential election.The lawsuit asserts that the United States government violated the plaintiffs' rights by encouraging and allowing activities relating to greenhouse gas emissions that significantly infringed upon their right to life and liberty. The case is an example of an area of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_law" title="Environmental law" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">environmental law</a> referred to as "atmospheric trust litigation", a concept based on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine" title="Public trust doctrine" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">public trust doctrine</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_law#Transboundary_responsibility" title="Environmental law" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">international responsibility</a> related to natural resources. While similar past lawsuits have been dismissed by U.S. courts, Juliana v. United States gained attention in 2016 when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Oregon" title="United States District Court for the District of Oregon" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">U.S. District Court of Oregon</a> Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Aiken" title="Ann Aiken" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">Ann Aiken</a> declined to dismiss it; Judge Aiken ruled that access to a clean environment was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_the_United_States" class="mw-redirect" title="Fundamental rights in the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">fundamental right</a>. In January 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed Judge Aiken and dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
<div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading" style="background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); padding: 7px; display: table;"><ul style="list-style-image: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Case_history" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Case history</a><ul style="list-style-image: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Background" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">1.1Background</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Initial_hearings" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">1.2Initial hearings</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Government_objections" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">1.3Government objections</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Interlocutory_appeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">1.4Interlocutory appeal</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Involved_parties" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">2Involved parties</a><ul style="list-style-image: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Plaintiffs" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">2.1Plaintiffs</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Defendants" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">2.2Defendants</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#Influence" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">3Influence</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#See_also" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">4See also</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">5References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#External_links" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">6External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3;">Case history[</h2><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;">Background[</h3>Legal actions to affect <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" class="mw-redirect" title="Global warming" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">climate change</a> by federal and state-level governments have been attempted since the 1990s; one of the first known cases was led by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Oposa" title="Antonio Oposa" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">Antonio Oposa</a>, a Philippine lawyer that represented a class-action suit of 43 students against the Philippine government to protect a forest surrounding their village. Oposa had won the suit, which led to numerous other lawsuits around the world.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-atlantic_may2012-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[1]</a> As of July 2018, there were over 1,000 such lawsuits filed across 24 countries, with 888 of those within the United States.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-cnn_july2018-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[2]</a> Such cases typically involve youth and children and other future generations, as they help to broaden the appeal of the action, and represent the class that would be most affected by government action or inaction.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-atlantic_may2012-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[1]</a>The Oregon non-profit organization, Our Children's Trust, was created by attorney Julia Olson to help formulate legal cases that could be taken against states and the federal government that would charge them with mitigating climate change under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine" title="Public trust doctrine" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">public trust doctrine</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-psmag-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[3]</a> Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Christina_Wood" title="Mary Christina Wood" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Mary Christina Wood</a>, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oregon" title="University of Oregon" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">University of Oregon</a>, 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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[4]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-psmag-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[3]</a> Part of Our Children's Trust's inspiration was from Oposa's work in the Philippines. Since 2011, Our Children's Trust has been filing various state and federal lawsuits on behalf of youth, though most of these have been dismissed by courts, as courts generally have not ruled that access to a clean environment is a right that can be litigated against.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[5]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-cnn_july2018-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-psmag-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[3]</a> Such cases are also generally dismissed as lawsuits cannot be initiated by "generalized grievances", and require plaintiffs with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing(law)" title="Standing (law)" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">standing to sue</a> and can demonstrate concrete harm that the government has done, and that the courts can at least partially redress the harm by order of the court.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-atlantic_oct2018-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[6]</a> Further, cases cannot be brought to court if they deal with a "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question" title="Political question" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">political question</a>" which cannot be resolved by actions of Congress and the President.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-atlantic_oct2018-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[6]</a>A few related cases on climate change have made it to the Supreme Court. The first, which opened the way for the others, was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v.Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,volume_549" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 549" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">549</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">U.S.</a> 497 (2007). In that suit, twelve states sued the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Protection_Agency" class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental Protection Agency" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA) for failing to regulate emissions of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases" class="mw-redirect" title="Greenhouse gases" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">greenhouse gases</a> and sought relief. The Court agreed with the states by a 5–4 vote on each of three issues: that the states had standing to sue the EPA for not issuing regulations, that greenhouse gases were air pollutants, and that the EPA was authorized to regulate them.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[7]</a>. The majority opinion stated that, while any regulation made by the EPA would be unlikely to stop global warming, the agency should be required to regulate such emissions to reduce the extent of global warming.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-atlantic_oct2018-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[6]</a> Subsequent cases were less successful. For example, an attempt to sue public utilities for greenhouse gas emissions under a "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nuisance" title="Public nuisance" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">public nuisance</a>" theory invoking the federal common law of nuisance was unanimously rejected by the Court in 2011 in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Electric_Power_Co.v.Connecticut" title="American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,volume_564" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 564" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">564</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">U.S.</a> 410 (2011), reversing a lower court decision in a case that also found an evenly divided court with regard to standing (as Justice Sotomayor did not participate).<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[8]</a> Also, a challenge to the EPA's subsequent regulations on greenhouse gases was upheld in part and denied in part in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_Air_Regulatory_Group_v.EPA" class="mw-redirect" title="Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,volume_573" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 573" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">573</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">U.S.</a>  (2014), a ruling which rejected the EPA's expansive reading of its powers by a 5–4 vote but permitted EPA to implement greenhouse gas regulation on existing monitored power plants by a 7–2 vote.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[9]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[10]</a><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;">Initial hearings</h3><div style="">The present case was filed in August 2015 with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Oregon" title="United States District Court for the District of Oregon" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">United States District Court for the District of Oregon</a>, and was assigned to judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Aiken" title="Ann Aiken" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Ann Aiken</a>, who was then the chief judge of the court.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[11]</a> The 21 youths, ranging from 8 to 19 at the time of filing, received pro bono representation from Our Children's Trust, and had support of climatologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen" title="James Hansen" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">James Hansen</a>, acting as a "guardian for future generations" in the case filings.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-cnn_mar2016-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[12]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-mashable_apr2016-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[13]</a> (Hansen's granddaughter Sophie Kivlehan was one of the named plaintiffs.)<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Vox-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[14]</a> The youths were selected by Our Children's Trust as they all were able to demonstrate immediate "concrete injury" due to climate change, such as having their homes wiped out by excessive flooding, rising sea levels, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification" title="Desertification" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">desertification</a> which were tied to climate change.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-atlantic_oct2018-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[6]</a>The case was filed against President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama" title="Barack Obama" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Barack Obama</a> 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. Among their arguments, the youths' attorneys asserted that the lack of governmental action on climate change discriminated against the youths' generation, since they would be most impacted by climate change but have no voting rights to influence that.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-cnn_mar2016-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[12]</a>Three <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel" title="Fossil fuel" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">fossil fuel</a> industry groups, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute" title="American Petroleum Institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">American Petroleum Institute</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuel_and_Petrochemical_Manufacturers" title="American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers</a>, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Manufacturers" title="National Association of Manufacturers" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">National Association of Manufacturers</a>, initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-wapost_may2017-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[15]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-pacstd_june_2017-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[16]</a> Pre-trial hearings were held in March 2016 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin. 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 affect such changes.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-cnn_mar2016-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[12]</a> Coffin ruled in April 2016 recommending that both <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion(legal)" title="Motion (legal)" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">motions</a> to dismiss were denied; Coffin found that while the case was "unprecedented", it had sufficient merit to continue.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-mashable_apr2016-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[13]</a> Coffin's decision was upheld by Judge Aiken, who ruled in November 2016 that the right to "a climate system capable of sustaining human life" was a fundamental right similar to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage" class="mw-redirect" title="Gay marriage" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">gay marriage</a> as decided by the recent Supreme Court case, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v_Hodges" class="mw-redirect" title="Obergefell v Hodges" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Obergefell v Hodges</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-slate_nov2016-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[17]</a> According to Michael Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University" title="Columbia University" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Columbia University</a>, "this decision goes further than any other court ever has in declaring a fundamental obligation of government to prevent dangerous climate change",<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-slate_nov2016-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[17]</a> 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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Atlantic-18" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[18]</a> Preliminary trial dates were set for 2017.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-slate_nov2016-17" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[17]</a>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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-19" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[19]</a> In their response, the federal defendants denied that they had <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change" title="Attribution of recent climate change" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">caused climate change</a> or specific climate change impacts such as increased temperatures, drought conditions, warmer water temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-chart-20" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[20]</a> About a month later, the complaint was amended to make the lead defendant newly-elected President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Donald Trump</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-chart-20" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[20]</a> In the months that followed, the fossil fuel industry groups requested that they be removed from the case, believing that the Department of Justice under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Administration" class="mw-redirect" title="Trump Administration" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Trump Administration</a> would vigorously defend the case, unlike the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Administration" class="mw-redirect" title="Obama Administration" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Obama Administration</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-wapost_may2017-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[15]</a> HMMN RATIONALE?The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Manufacturers" title="National Association of Manufacturers" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">National Association of Manufacturers</a>, 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".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-wapost_may2017-15" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[15]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-pacstd_june_2017-16" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[16]</a> In late June 2017, Judge Coffin released the fossil fuel industry defendants from the case, as well as establishing a trial date on February 5, 2018 before Judge Aiken.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-21" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[21]</a><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;">Government objections[</h3>In early June 2017, the Department of Justice filed a motion requesting that Judge Aiken rule on its prior motion for an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutory_appeal" title="Interlocutory appeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">interlocutory appeal</a> 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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_mandamus" class="mw-redirect" title="Writ of mandamus" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">writ of mandamus</a> regarding the issue in the Ninth Circuit.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-think_june2017-22" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[22]</a> Judge Aiken denied the motion requesting the interlocutory appeal on June 8,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[23]</a> leading the government to petition the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus on June 11. The government's petition argued that the Ninth Circuit needed to act to correct "multiple and clear errors of law in refusing to dismiss an action that seeks wholesale changes in federal government policy based on utterly unprecedented legal theories".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[24]</a> The government also argued that the pre-trial discovery phase would cause the government harm due to the volume of data and evidence they would need to provide.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-mashable_nov2017-25" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[25]</a>After receiving responses from the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit opted in November 2017 to hear oral arguments before making their decision.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-mashable_nov2017-25" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[25]</a> These arguments were held on December 11, 2017 in front of Judges <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Thomas" class="mw-redirect" title="Sidney Thomas" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Sidney Thomas</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski" title="Alex Kozinski" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Alex Kozinski</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_Berzon" class="mw-redirect" title="Marsha Berzon" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Marsha Berzon</a>. A few days later, Judge Kozinski stepped down from the Ninth Circuit.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[26]</a> On December 21, 2017, Judge <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Friedland" title="Michelle Friedland" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Michelle Friedland</a> was appointed to replace Kozinski. Due to the Ninth Circuit's hearing, the planned trial date at District Court was put on hold.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[27]</a> On March 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the requested writ of mandamus in a decision by Judge Thomas.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[28]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[29]</a> The District Court trial was then rescheduled to start October 29, 2018.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Eugene-30" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[30]</a>The government then petitioned the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">Supreme Court of the United States</a> requesting a stay to delay the trial. 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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[31]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[32]</a>Following the Supreme Court's order, the government again presented two motions to dismiss the case to Judge Aiken in July 2018. One motion stated that the case, in addressing multiple government agencies, violated the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act(United_States)" title="Administrative Procedure Act (United States)" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Administrative Procedure Act</a>, while the other motion challenged the youths' standing in the case.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[33]</a> While Judge Aiken said she would rule promptly on the motions, she had not issued her decision by October 5, causing the government again to request an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit via a second writ of mandamus, asking them to delay the case until Aiken ruled on the two motions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-34" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[34]</a> On October 15, Judge Aiken ruled on the two motions, denying both. Aiken also removed President Trump as a defendant in the case without prejudice, meaning that he could be re-added to the case at a later stage, and reaffirmed the trial start date of October 29.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[35]</a>In response, on October 18, 2018, the U.S. government submitted an emergency motion to the Supreme Court, again requesting to stay the trial.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-36" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[36]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Howe-37" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[37]</a> The government claimed that, "Absent relief from this court, the government imminently will be forced to participate in a 50-day trial that would violate bedrock requirements for agency decision making and judicial review imposed by the [Administrative Procedure Act] and the separation of powers."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-38" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[38]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-39" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[39]</a> Chief Justice <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts" title="John Roberts" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">John Roberts</a> of the Supreme Court granted the stay the next day, pending receipt of a response to the government's brief from the plaintiffs.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-40" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[40]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Howe-37" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[37]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-41" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[41]</a> 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."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Vox-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[14]</a> On October 24, 2018, Judge Aiken filed an order vacating the trial start date of October 29 and placing a hold on the rest of the trial schedule.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-42" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[42]</a>On November 2, the Supreme Court (by a 7–2 vote) denied the government's request for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay, holding that the government could still be granted pretrial relief from the Ninth Circuit.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-scotus_2018nov2-43" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[43]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Marris-44" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[44]</a> 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".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Howe2-45" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[45]</a> 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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Howe2-45" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[45]</a><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;">Interlocutory appeal[</h3>On November 8, 2018, consistent with the Supreme Court's order of November 2, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted an indefinite stay on the trial pending its ruling on the government's request for a writ of mandamus, as well as requesting briefs from both the plaintiffs and the trial court on the writ and requiring the trial court to rule on the government's renewed motion for an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutory_appeal" title="Interlocutory appeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">interlocutory appeal</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-46" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[46]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-47" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[47]</a> On November 21, 2018, Judge Aiken reversed her position and granted the government's request for an interlocutory appeal, putting the entire case on hold until the higher courts have ruled on this appeal.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-48" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[48]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-49" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[49]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Adler-50" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[50]</a> On permission granted, the government filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit on November 30, 2018, for interlocutory review of the order on motions to dismiss and the order on motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. An answer was filed with the Court by the plaintiffs on December 10, 2018.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-51" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[51]</a>On December 26, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the requested writ of mandamus as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness" title="Mootness" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">moot</a> but granted the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutory_appeal" title="Interlocutory appeal" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">interlocutory appeal</a> by a 2–1 vote.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-52" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[52]</a> Subsequently, as requested by plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit set an expedited schedule for the appeal, requiring the government's opening appeal brief by February 1, 2019, the plaintiff's response brief by February 22, 2019, and all briefing to be completed by March 8, 2019.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-53" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[53]</a> 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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-54" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[54]</a> On February 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an "extraordinary motion" asking the Ninth Circuit to issue a preliminary injunction by March 19, 2019, blocking the federal government from approving any <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel" title="Fossil fuel" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">fossil fuel</a> production activities either on federal land or needing federal approval, such as coal mining on federal land, oil or natural gas drilling offshore, or pipelines that need federal approval.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-55" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[55]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-56" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[56]</a>. In opposition, the federal government noted that the case was filed over 3.5 years before the plaintiff's initial request for an emergency injunction.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-57" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[57]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-58" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[58]</a> Meanwhile, the plaintiffs argued in part that the appeal was improvidently granted and that the case should be returned to Judge Aiken.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-59" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[59]</a> The Ninth Circuit scheduled oral argument on the appeal for the week of June 3, 2019 in Portland,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-60" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[60]</a> and the appeal was ultimately heard on June 4 in front of a different three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_H.Murguia" title="Mary H. Murguia" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Mary H. Murguia</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_D.Hurwitz" title="Andrew D. Hurwitz" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Andrew D. Hurwitz</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Staton" title="Josephine Staton" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Josephine Staton</a> (sitting by designation), all of whom were appointed to the bench by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Obama" class="mw-redirect" title="President Obama" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">President Obama</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-61" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[61]</a>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.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Adler-50" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[50]</a> Other experts, such as the director of Columbia University's climate change center, noted that any decision in favor of the plaintiffs likely would be reversed by the Supreme Court, which has been reluctant to declare new rights and which unanimously held in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Electric_Power_Co.v.Connecticut" title="American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut</a> that it was not for the courts to decide appropriate levels of pollution.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-Atlantic-18" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[18]</a>On January 17, 2020, on a 2–1 vote, the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing. Writing for the majority, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_D.Hurwitz" title="Andrew D. Hurwitz" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; background: none;">Judge Hurwitz</a> 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."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-toss-62" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[62]</a> In dissent, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_L.Staton" class="mw-redirect" title="Josephine L. Staton" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Judge Staton</a> characterized the majority as shirking its judicial responsibility to rectify a grave constitutional wrong in the manner the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. Supreme Court" style="background: none rgb(255, 204, 102); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">U.S. Supreme Court</a> laudably did in its landmark <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v.Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Brown v. Board of Education</a> decision, stating, "My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-63" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[63]</a> She further argued, "No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-64" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[64]</a> In an analogy from her impassioned dissent that became widely cited in the news media,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-65" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[65]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-66" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[66]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-67" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[67]</a> Judge Staton stated that "[i]n these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response – yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-68" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[68]</a> Lawyers for the plaintiffs stated their intent to appeal this dismissal to the full Ninth Circuit sitting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc" title="En banc" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">en banc</a>,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-toss-62" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[62]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-toss2-69" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[69]</a> and subsequently filed such a petition. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v.United_States#cite_note-70" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[70]</a><h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3;">Involved parties</h2><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">see below</div></div>==</div><div class="post-pager js-listicle-pager" data-listicle-style="" data-async_load_parameters="platform=desktop&display_ads=1&settings=%7B%22enter_url%22%3A+false%2C+%22no_post_section%22%3A+false%2C+%22ads_breaks%22%3A+null%2C+%22prevent_last_break_repetition%22%3A+false%2C+%22use_numeration%22%3A+false%2C+%22allow_url_change%22%3A+true%2C+%22ads_order%22%3A+%5B%5D%2C+%22pagination_order%22%3A+%5B%5D%2C+%22list_breaks%22%3A+null%2C+%22reorder_voting%22%3A+false%2C+%22cooldown_in_seconds%22%3A+null%2C+%22source%22%3A+%22post_listicle_settings%22%2C+%22next_post_url%22%3A+null%2C+%22up_down_voting%22%3A+false%2C+%22show_columns_on_mobile%22%3A+false%2C+%22numeration_sort%22%3A+-1%2C+%22allow_url_update%22%3A+true%2C+%22use_pagination%22%3A+false%2C+%22body_text_above%22%3A+false%2C+%22use_ads%22%3A+false%2C+%22items_as_posts%22%3A+false%2C+%22multiple_answers%22%3A+false%2C+%22no_redirect%22%3A+false%2C+%22is_guest_voting_allowed%22%3A+true%2C+%22layout_type%22%3A+1%7D" style="display: table; width: 780px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="around-the-web" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 5px !important;"><div class="from-your-siteheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; visibility: hidden !important; margin-bottom: -5px !important;"><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="from-your-siteitem"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/youth-climate-lawsuit-supreme-court-2614235440.html" class="from-your-sitelink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px;">Supreme Court Puts Historic Youth Climate Lawsuit on Hold ... ›</a></li></ul><div class="around-the-webheadline" style="font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; visibility: hidden; margin-top: 20px !important; margin-bottom: -5px !important;"><ul class="around-the-weblist" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style: none;"><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/us-appeals-court-tosses-children-s-climate-lawsuit" class="around-the-weblink" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px;">U.S. appeals court tosses children's climate lawsuit | Science | AAAS ›</a></li><li class="around-the-webitem"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/landmark-youth-climate-change-case-tossed-939846/" class="around-the-web__link" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5; display: inline-block; margin-top: 10px;">Landmark Youth Climate Change Case Tossed - Rolling Stone ›</a></li></ul></div>==</div></div></div>