Juliana v. United States

947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps claim that D has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a 'climate system capable of sustaining human life.' Ps have presented compelling evidence that climate change and its destruction are upon us. The evidentiary record documents that D has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse. Ps are twenty-one young citizens, an environmental organization, and a 'representative of future generations.' Their complaint accuses D of continuing to 'permit, authorize, and subsidize' fossil fuel use despite long being aware of its risks, thereby causing various climate-change-related injuries to Ps. Some plaintiffs claim psychological harm, others impairment to recreational interests, others exacerbated medical conditions, and others property damage. The complaint asserts violations of (1) Ps' substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (2) Ps' rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of the law; (3) Ps' rights under the Ninth Amendment; and (4) the public trust doctrine. Ps seek declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to 'phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide].' The district court denied D's motion to dismiss, concluding that Ps had standing to sue, raised justiciable questions, and stated a claim for infringement of a Fifth Amendment due process right to a 'climate system capable of sustaining human life.' The court even defined that right as one to be free from catastrophic climate change 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 concluded that Ps had stated a viable 'danger-creation due process claim' arising from the government's failure to regulate third-party emissions. The court held that Ps had stated a public trust claim grounded in the Fifth and the Ninth Amendments. D sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court denied P's motion for a stay of proceedings. It found the stay request 'premature,' and noted that the 'breadth of respondents' claims is striking . . . and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion.' D moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted summary judgment on the Ninth Amendment claim, dismissed the President as a defendant, and dismissed the equal protection claim in part. The court otherwise denied the government's motions, again holding that Ps had standing to sue and finding that they had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. The court rejected D's argument that the Ps' exclusive remedy was under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court reluctantly certified the orders denying the motions for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stayed the proceedings, while 'standing by its prior rulings . . . as well as its belief that this case would be better served by further factual development at trial.' D appealed.