anne aiken hon
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">official 8 23</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); overflow-wrap: break-word; letter-spacing: 0.4px; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Current Status:<br style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" /></strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.4px; white-space-collapse: preserve; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">On June 1, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of the 21 youth plaintiffs,</span><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/6478e7fed46a9411e8179312/1685645310632/06.01.23+Juliana+Ruling.pdf" tabindex="0" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; letter-spacing: 0.4px; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> </a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); letter-spacing: 0.4px; white-space-collapse: preserve;">putting their constitutional climate case back on the path to trial. However, as the U.S. DOJ continues to aggressively file motions to delay or dismiss the case instead of fulfilling the<b> Biden Administration’s promises to work with youth for climate justice,</b> attorneys for both sides will continue briefing the same legal issues that have already been addressed by the courts multiple times. Judge Aiken’s ruling on recent motions filed by both the plaintiffs and the DOJ can be expected in the coming months.</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><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);"><span class="mw-headline" id="Initial_hearings"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Initial hearings</font></span></h3><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span class="mw-headline"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman">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.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-cnn_mar2016_12-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-mashable_apr2016_13-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> (<b>Hansen's granddaughter Sophie Kivlehan was one of the named plaintiffs</b>.)<sup id="cite_ref-Vox_14-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-atlantic_oct2018_6-3" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</span> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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.<sup id="cite_ref-cnn_mar2016_12-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-wapost_may2017_15-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-pacstd_june_2017_16-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> Pre-trial hearings were held in March 2016 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin. </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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.</b><sup id="cite_ref-cnn_mar2016_12-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 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</span>.<sup id="cite_ref-mashable_apr2016_13-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Coffin's decision was upheld by Judge Aiken, who ruled in November 2016 that the<b> 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></b> as decided by the recent Supreme Court case, <i><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></i>.</span><sup id="cite_ref-slate_nov2016_17-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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",<sup id="cite_ref-slate_nov2016_17-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> and <b>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</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-Atlantic_18-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> Preliminary trial dates were set for 2017.<sup id="cite_ref-slate_nov2016_17-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> In their response, the<b> 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</b> such as increased temperatures, drought conditions, warmer water temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification</span>.<sup id="cite_ref-chart_20-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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>.<sup id="cite_ref-chart_20-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> In the months that followed, the<b> fossil fuel industry groups requested that they be removed from the case</b>, 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></span>.<sup id="cite_ref-wapost_may2017_15-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> HMMN RATIONALE?</p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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 <b>safeguard industry and our workers</b>".</span><sup id="cite_ref-wapost_may2017_15-2" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-pacstd_june_2017_16-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <b>In late June 2017, Judge Coffin released the fossil fuel industry defendants from the case,</b> as well as establishing a trial date on February 5, 2018 before Judge Aiken.<sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Government_objections">Government objections</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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.<sup id="cite_ref-think_june2017_22-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">Judge Aiken denied the motion requesting the interlocutory appeal on June 8,<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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".<sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-mashable_nov2017_25-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>After receiving responses from the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit opted in November 2017 to hear oral arguments before making their decision.</b><sup id="cite_ref-mashable_nov2017_25-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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>. <b>A few days later, Judge Kozinski stepped down from the Ninth Circuit.</b><sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-27" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> On March 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the requested writ of mandamus in a decision by Judge Thomas</span>.<sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-29" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <b>The District Court trial was then rescheduled to start October 29, 2018</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-Eugene_30-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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</b>. On July 30, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a brief order, denying the government's request for a stay as premature <b>but expressing skepticism about the lawsuit</b>, as well as noting that the breadth of the plaintiffs' claims was "striking" and <b>requesting that the District Court issue a prompt ruling on the government's motions challenging the overall justiciability of those claims</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-32" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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.<sup id="cite_ref-33" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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 <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">request an <b>emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit </b>via a second writ of mandamus, </span>asking them to delay the case until Aiken ruled on the two motions.<sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <b>On October 15, Judge Aiken ruled on the two motions, denying both.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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</span>.<sup id="cite_ref-35" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In response, on October 18, 2018, the U.S. government submitted an emergency motion to the Supreme Court, again requesting to stay the trial.<sup id="cite_ref-36" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Howe_37-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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."</span><sup id="cite_ref-38" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-39" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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></b><b> of the Supreme Court granted the stay the next day</b>, pending receipt of a response to the government's brief from the plaintiffs.<sup id="cite_ref-40" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Howe_37-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-41" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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 <i>Juliana</i> case."<sup id="cite_ref-Vox_14-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-42" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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.<sup id="cite_ref-scotus_2018nov2_43-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Marris_44-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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".<sup id="cite_ref-Howe2_45-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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.</span><sup id="cite_ref-Howe2_45-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Interlocutory_appeal">Interlocutory appeal</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span></span></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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</b> 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>.<sup id="cite_ref-46" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-47" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-48" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-49" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Adler_50-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-51" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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</b>.<sup id="cite_ref-52" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Subsequently, as requested by plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit set an expedited schedule for the appeal,</span> 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.<sup id="cite_ref-53" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <b>The government's appeal brief again<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> challenged the unique constitutional </span>and statutory rulings on <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">standing,</span> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">fundamental rights</span>, and the public trust doctrine made by the district court.</b><sup id="cite_ref-54" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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</span>.<sup id="cite_ref-55" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-56" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup>. </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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.<sup id="cite_ref-57" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-58" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> Meanwhile, the plaintiffs argued in part that the appeal was improvidently granted and that the case should be returned to Judge Aiken.<sup id="cite_ref-59" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> The Ninth Circuit scheduled oral argument on the appeal for the week of June 3, 2019 in Portland,<sup id="cite_ref-60" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> and the appeal was ultimately heard on June 4 in front of a different <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">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> </span>(sitting by designation), <b>all of whom were appointed to the bench by </b><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;"><b>President Obama</b></a>.<sup id="cite_ref-61" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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.<sup id="cite_ref-Adler_50-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> Other experts, such as the director of Columbia University's climate change center, noted that<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 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 <i><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></i> that it was not for the courts to decide appropriate levels of pollution.</span><sup id="cite_ref-Atlantic_18-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><b>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. </b></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">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."<sup id="cite_ref-toss_62-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> In dissent, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_L.Staton" class="mw-redirect" title="Josephine L. 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;">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="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. Supreme Court</a> laudably did in its landmark <i><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></i> decision</span>, stating, "My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary."<sup id="cite_ref-63" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> 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."<sup id="cite_ref-64" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> </p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px;">In an analogy from her impassioned dissent that became widely cited in the news media,<sup id="cite_ref-65" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-66" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-67" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> Judge Staton stated that "<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">[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.</span> <b>Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.</b>"<sup id="cite_ref-68" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Lawyers for the plaintiffs stated their intent to appeal this dismissal to the full Ninth Circuit sitting <i><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></i>,<sup id="cite_ref-toss_62-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup><sup id="cite_ref-toss2_69-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup> and subsequently filed such a petition.</span> <sup id="cite_ref-70" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><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></sup></p><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;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Involved_parties">Involved parties</span></h2><div><span class="mw-headline">....</span></div></span></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-right-to-a-stable-climate-is-the-constitutional-question-of-the-twenty-first-century">https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-right-to-a-stable-climate-is-the-constitutional-question-of-the-twenty-first-century</a></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>the Right to a Stable Climate Is the Constitutional Question of the Twenty-first Century</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Carolyn Kormann</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>June 15, 2019</b></font></div><div>
</div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On June 4th, in a packed courtroom in Portland, Oregon<b>, Judge Andrew Hurwitz, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, posed an unusual hypothetical question. </b>“<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Assume that we have rogue raiders come across the Canadian border of the Northwest. They are kidnapping children of a certain age and murdering them,” he said. “The White House refuses to do anything and Congress doesn’t act. Can those people”—the terrorized families and communities—“go to court to compel action?” He was asking Jeff Clark, the lawyer representing the federal government, the defendant in the case. Clark replied, “My answer is no.”</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judge Hurwitz, along with Judges Mary Murguia and Josephine Staton, was presiding over oral arguments in Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana v. the United States, better known as the climate kids’ lawsuit. In August of 2015, the twenty-one plaintiffs, who then ranged in age from eight to nineteen years old, sued the Obama Administration and various federal agencies, alleging that the government’s policies on fossil fuels advanced catastrophic climate change and therefore violated the right, guaranteed to them under the Fifth Amendment, that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In other words, as Judge Hurwitz’s hypothetical suggested, their suit is an attempt to compel action from a government that is ignoring (and furthering) a life-threatening danger that they face</b>. Since then, the case has ricocheted through the courts, gaining strength as urgency around climate change has increased and the Trump Administration has continued to deny that a problem exists. (<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“The climate goes both ways,” President Trump said in London, last week. “I believe that there’s a change in weather and I think it changes both ways.”</span>) <b>Instead, the Administration has aggressively promoted and expanded the use of fossil fuels, recently announcing that natural gas would be rebranded as “freedom gas.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Hurwitz asked his question at the start of the hearing, establishing the stakes and reflecting the gravity with which the judges were weighing the plaintiffs’ claims. It pointed to an issue at the heart of the case, and at the heart of most climate litigation—the separation of powers. </span>“The central issue the Ninth Circuit is grappling with is what is the role of the courts vis a vis Congress and the executive branch,” Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, wrote me in an e-mail.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “If a building is on fire and all the firefighters are off at a convention, can the neighbors break into the firehouse and run the firetrucks themselves? Or do they have to wait for permission, while the building burns down? Likewise, if the planet is on fire and Congress and the Administration are checked out, can the courts act on their own?</span>”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Since most major environmental statutes date to the nineteen-seventies, and Congress has not been able to pass a single major environmental law since 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency, other federal agencies, and the courts have been forced to address current problems with laws that are decades old.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">(The main problem now is that the Senate will not act. In early May, as the House prepared to vote on a new bill, the Climate Action Now Act, which would force the Trump Administration to remain in the Paris climate agreement, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said that it would “go nowhere.”) </span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Once Trump was elected, and federal agencies no longer had a mandate to address climate change, the courts became the only branch of government where action might be possible<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">. </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">But, in the absence of adequate climate-policy laws, the courts must find their right to act in the Constitution</span>. <b>Two days after Trump’s election, a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> federal judge for the District of Oregon, Ann Aiken, </span>found that right and issued a major decision, denying the government’s motion to dismiss the Juliana case.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> “Where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation,” Aiken wrote.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”</span> A trial date was set for early last year, then postponed until last fall. The government, meanwhile, turned to the Supreme Court, asking the Justices to prevent the trial from going forward. In November, they declined to do so, determining that the government needed to bring its objections before the Ninth Circuit first. The Ninth Circuit now must decide whether the case can, finally, proceed to trial.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">During the hearing, Jeff Clark, from the Justice Department, argued that there is no substantive constitutional right to a stable environment. </b>Julia Olson, the co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs and the executive director of Our Children’s Trust, a group that has been bringing climate-litigation cases around the country, argued that the government misunderstood the plaintiffs’ claims. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">She said, “The Supreme Court has already recognized that the liberties that we all hold include our right to bodily integrity and personal security and family autonomy. So this <b>court doesn’t need to step out of bounds and recognize any kind of new right, it can stick with the bedrock fundamental rights that we all</b>—” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">At this point, Judge Hurwitz interrupted her, saying, “Actually, to be fair, you’re arguing for us to break new ground.” He added, “I’m sympathetic to the problems you point out, but you shouldn’t minimize—you shouldn’t say this is just an ordinary suit, and all we have to do is follow A, B, and C, and we get there. You’re asking us to do a lot of new stuff, aren’t you?” Olson replied, “We’re asking the court to apply bedrock constitutional law and principles to a wholly new set of facts.</span>”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The government, for its part, disputed some of those facts.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Judge Aiken had found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because they had demonstrated three things: that they had suffered particular, concrete injuries; that the cause of their injuries was “fairly traceable” to the government’s actions; and that the courts had the ability, at least partially, to remedy these injuries. </span><b>On the first two parts of standing, the government’s case is weakening by the minute, owing especially to the growing body of attribution science</b>—studies published in peer-reviewed journals that directly link extreme weather events, such as huge hurricanes and raging wildfires, to climate change. “Evidence to meet the standing burden has gotten much stronger,” Ann Carlson, an environmental-law professor at U.C.L.A., told me.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All the plaintiffs were in the courtroom for the hearing. They have each submitted sworn testimony to the court, explaining the personal injuries that climate change has caused in their lives. The youngest, Levi Draheim, who is now eleven, lives in the barrier-island community of Satellite Beach, Florida, which his family has been forced to evacuate several times, due to hurricanes and floods. Jayden Foytlin, who is fifteen and lives near the Louisiana coast, suffered emotional trauma when her home was severely flooded in 2016 and 2017. In her testimony, she describes how her family, having nowhere else to go, slept in the living room in a “house that was full of sewage and flood water damage.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Journey Zephier, nineteen, of Hawaii, has watched treasured coral reefs near his home die, due to ocean acidification and warming temperatures, and last year saw his home flood when an unprecedented fifty inches of rain fell in less than twenty-four hours, which also caused landslides and power outages in his community. Jamie Butler, eighteen, had to leave her home and her relatives in the Navajo Nation, because of severe drought and water scarcity. Kelsey Juliana, the lead plaintiff (and the oldest, at twenty-three), grew up in Eugene, Oregon, where she is now an environmental-studies major at the University of Oregon. She, along with eight of the other plaintiffs, described adverse health impacts from the wildfires that rage in and around their home towns practically every year. Some also wrote about the damage that extreme weather events and climate threats have caused to their cultural heritage; others described psychological troubles—nightmares, anxiety, depression.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Olson and the other lawyers can make a strong case that the plaintiffs’ injuries are “fairly traceable” to the government’s actions, considering that, for instance, almost <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">twenty-five per cent of U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions come from fossil-fuel development on federally owned land</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.</span> <b>There is also plenty of evidence that the government has known for many decades the dangers that adding greenhouse-gas emissions to the atmosphere would bring. </b>The Ninth Circuit judges seemed more than sympathetic to these arguments—both to the plaintiffs’ injuries and to the fact that they could be linked to the government’s policies. “You present compelling evidence that we have a real problem,” J<b>udge Hurwitz told Olson. “You present compelling evidence that we have inaction by the other two branches of government. It may even rise to the level of criminal neglect.</b>” With statements like that, Carlson told me, “That’s about as sympathetic a panel as the plaintiffs are going to get.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But Hurwitz and the two other judges hesitated about the third condition of standing—the ability of the courts to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries—which ultimately goes back to the separation of powers</span>.<b> He said, “The issue here is whether this branch of government, embodied by the three of us today, has the ability to issue the relief that your clients seek.” Olson argued that it did, because the case was<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> not based on the government’s inaction (as Hurwitz’s hypothetical had implied) but, rather, on its affirmative and substantial actions to facilitate, subsidize, and promote a fossil-fuel-based energy system. </span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The courts could, therefore, declare that the government must use its statutory authority to transition the economy away from fossil fuels, and order government agencies—such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—to create national plans detailing how such a transition could be achieved</span><b>. The evidence presented at trial—documents, cross-examination testimony, expert witnesses—would provide the specifics that such plans needed to include, Olson said.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The judges did not seem entirely convinced that the courts had the power to intervene in the activities of so many parts of the executive branch—at least eight government agencies would be involved</b>. “I’m trying to figure out if we have done anything “on this scale, to this proportion,” Judge Murguia said. “I’m almost drawing on a clean slate.” <b>Olson said that “the scale of the problem is so big because of the systemic conduct of the government.</b>” <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As precedents, she pointed to Supreme Court cases in which the courts were deeply involved in the remedy of constitutional violations. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court declared that segregation was unconstitutional in public schools, and then, in a follow-up ruling, ordered all federal, state, and local districts to desegregate. In Hills v. Gautreaux, the Court upheld an order requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development to rectify discriminatory public housing.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In the government’s view, as Clark presented it, “the sweeping nature of the case” made it “a direct attack on the separation of powers” and “an assault on the Constitution’s design.</b>” <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But, in the most basic terms, wasn’t the Constitution designed so that one branch of government can check the other two, if their behavior fails to protect and preserve individual liberties? It was, but, as<b> Hurwitz</b> noted, “We may have the wrong Congress and the wrong President. That’s occurred from time to time over history. The real question for us is whether we get to intervene because of that.” That is to say, the judges need to decide whether they agree that the government’s action go beyond politics and are violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights—rights that only exist if we have a stable climate.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The judges will take a few weeks to issue their decision. If they decide in the plaintiffs’ favor, the government will likely petition the Supreme Court, again, to prevent the trial from proceeding.</b> The Justices may decide that they need the full factual record that a trial would provide; they generally want things fully baked. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>For observers thinking about long-term climate-litigation strategy, though, there is concern that the present bench of Justices might take the opportunity—either after the trial or in refusing to let it go forward—to set a precedent that could be damaging to environmental protections in lawsuits down the road.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Worst of all, it might lead them to <b>revisit Massachusetts v. E.P.A.</b>, the landmark 2007 decision that established that the E.P.A. has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote on that case; Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion. “There is real worry,” Michael Gerrard said.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The strategic question of how far to push environmental cases is one that many groups face.</b> All the challenges to the Trump Administration’s rollbacks of Obama’s climate policies are still pending in lower courts. If an environmental group loses, and takes the case to the Supreme Court, “you might get a decision that is even worse, that has greater reach,” Carlson said. <b>Still, the fact that the Juliana case has come this far has had a galvanizing impact. </b>Thousands of people, across the country and around the world, watched a live stream of the hearing—on the Ninth Circuit’s YouTube channel, on outdoor screens in parks—and the judges commented several times on the widespread interest in the case. It seemed indicative of what’s to come. In Olson’s concluding statement, she put the matter in its appropriate context. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">“If we look back on the twentieth century, we can see that race and sex discrimination were the constitutional questions of that era. And when our great-grandchildren look back at the twenty-first century, they will see that government-sanctioned climate destruction was the<b> constitutional issue of this century</b></span></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div></div>