Appeals court orders youth climate suit dismissed — again
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Wednesday ordered a lower court judge to end a climate change lawsuit filed against the federal government by children for the second time.
The appellate court “reluctantly” ruled in 2020 that the case should be dismissed, but the district court judge in Oregon hearing the case allowed the children to file a new version of the suit. The 9th Circuit rebuked that decision in an order issued Wednesday and unequivocally directed the case be dismissed.
Known as Juliana v. United States, the case had long been a potential bright spot for such youth-led climate litigation that has usually failed to take off. A state-level ruling last year in a youth climate case in Montana raised hopes of additional victories, but the order highlights the challenges of pursuing such action at the federal level.
Background: A collection of children, many of whom have since become young adults, argued in a 2015 lawsuit that the federal government's historical subsidization of fossil fuels violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.
After years of procedural fights at every level of the judiciary, the 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled that the children lack standing because the courts cannot order the federal government to take sweeping, generalized action on greenhouse gas emissions. It ordered Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, who has overseen the suit, to dismiss it.
In response, the children amended their lawsuit and instead asked for just a "declaratory" judgement holding that their rights had been violated. Aiken last year allowed the amended lawsuit to move forward, prompting the Biden administration to appeal.
Details: In a short order, three judges from the 9th Circuit said that the amended complaint must be dismissed.
Aiken had argued that the prior order did not explicitly bar an amended complaint, but the panel ruled that "neither the mandate’s letter nor its spirit left room for amendment."
Aiken also argued that a subsequent 2021 ruling from the Supreme Court known as Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski regarding whether nominal damages can justify standing had changed the case law. But the panel rejected that argument as well.
"Declaratory relief is prospective. The Juliana plaintiffs do not seek damages but seek only prospective relief. Nothing in Uzuegbunam changed the law with respect to prospective relief,” the panel wrote. “We held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and told the district court to dismiss. Uzuegbunam did not change that. The district court is instructed to dismiss the case forthwith for lack of Article III standing, without leave to amend.”
The order was issued by Judges Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson and Eric Miller, all Trump appointees. A different set of judges issued the 2020 ruling.
An attorney for the children plaintiffs and a spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately return requests for comment.
