Juliana v. United States

217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (2016)

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 in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen. Ps filed this action against (Ds), the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies. Ps allege Ds have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would 'significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia.' Ps assert Ds, 'by their exercise of sovereign authority over our country's atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, . . . permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, . . . deliberately allowing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history.' Ps contend that Ds bear 'a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country' for exposing Ps to the dangers of climate change. Ps argue Ds' actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that Ds have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and future generations. Ps assert there is a very short window in which Ds could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe. They seek (1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. Ds moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The questions before the Court are whether Ds are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change, whether Ps may challenge Ds' climate change policy in court, and whether this Court can direct Ds to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.