Summary |
|
On December 29, 2023, Judge Ann Aiken of the United States (U.S.) District Court for the District of Oregon denied the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss the landmark legal case, Juliana v. United States (Juliana). This case has the potential to bring climate change back before the Supreme Court again.
The case began back in 2015, when 21 young Americans claimed that the U.S. government, through its affirmative actions, violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, among other ground-breaking claims. After more than 8 years, the case still has yet to go to trial, due to the government’s aggressive strategy, which includes the filing of motions to delay or dismiss. By not granting the latest motion to dismiss the case, Judge Aiken is allowing the plaintiffs to proceed to trial.
The following highlights the key aspects of the recent ruling by Judge Aiken.
Background and Allegations
The 21 youth plaintiffs in Juliana asserted in their complaint that “their government, by subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and consumption, is responsible for destroying the climate system on which all life, liberty, and property depend […]” [1]. In other words, the plaintiffs argue that the government, through permitting and even subsidizing fossil fuels, has knowingly allowed atmospheric CO2 levels to reach dangerous levels. Judge Aiken highlights in the opening of her ruling that “lawsuits like this highlight young people’s despair with the drawn-out pace of the unhurried, inchmeal, bureaucratic response to our most dire emergency” [2].
In responding to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government has not denied that it promoted fossil fuel combustion through “subsidies; tax exemptions; permits for fossil fuel development projects; leases on federal lands and offshore areas; permits for imports and exports; and permits for energy facilities” [3]. Recent calculations estimate that the U.S. subsidizes the oil and gas industry in the amount of $20 billion USD.
The plaintiffs argue that the government, by subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and consumption, is violating U.S. citizens’ fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause in the Constitution and the public trust doctrine, among other claims. In order to prevent the government from continuing to go down this path, the plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to stop the government’s subsidizing of fossil fuels.
Rule of Mandate
The U.S. government argued that Judge Aiken should dismiss the case due to a previous mandate to dismiss. She held that even though a higher court had previously returned the case to Judge Aiken’s district court with instructions to dismiss the case, the instructions did not explicitly or impliedly state that the plaintiffs could not continue with an amended complaint [4]. This is exactly what the plaintiffs did; they amended their complaint and therefore the district court maintains that it is not required to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Justiciability of the Plaintiffs’ Claims
In its motion to dismiss, the government had also challenged the justiciability of the case, asserting that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was unavailable or too broad. Judge Aiken granted this motion only in part. The court dismissed the following injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs: “[a]n injunction restraining defendants from carrying out policies, practices, and affirmative actions that render the national energy system unconstitutional in a manner that harms plaintiffs” [5]. The court agreed with the U.S. government that an injunction would not be the most suitable remedy. According to precedent [6], plaintiffs can obtain injunctions against individual agencies for defined violations of law, which is not the case here.
The second remedy sought by the plaintiffs was declaratory relief; this is a very broad remedy that the court can exercise in its judgment, whereby it can make a specific statement or order as requested by a party. The U.S. government argued that declaring an energy system unconstitutional would declare several U.S. laws, regulations, and policies unconstitutional [7], which is not in the power of the court. Judge Aiken however held that the judiciary has the unique duty to declare constitutional rights and to prevent political acts that would curb or violate those rights [8]. Elsewhere in the ruling, she states: “The judiciary is capable and duty-bound to provide redress for the irreparable harm government fossil fuel promotion has caused” [9].
Constitutional Rights and Due Process
The core of the case hinges on the recognition of a fundamental right to a healthy climate. Under the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment of the Constitution), plaintiffs can challenge government actions that deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Courts then should review whether the government action was a rational means of achieving a legitimate governmental end [10]. However, for certain fundamental liberties, even rational acts are prohibited. In a landmark move, Judge Aiken decided to expand the interpretation of the Constitution, and she found “that the right to a climate system that can sustain human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society” [11]. She thus recognises ‘a climate system that can sustain human life’ as a fundamental right that may not be violated even if it would be rational for the U.S. government to do so. Judge Aiken states: “this Court simply holds that 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, damage property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, it states a claim for due process violation […] To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords protection against a government’s knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink” [12].
Public Trust Doctrine
A final aspect of the decision worth mentioning is concerning the public trust doctrine. The plaintiffs argue that the overarching public trust resource is the U.S. climate system (including all of its waters, air, and biosphere [13]. As a sovereign trustee, the U.S. government must refrain from ‘substantial impairment’ of these essential natural resources. The court agrees with this argument and holds that the federal and state governments of the U.S. hold public assets, which include the territorial seas, which in turn are affected by ocean acidification and rising ocean temperatures. [14]
Overall, Judge Aiken’s decision on the government’s motion to dismiss in Juliana v. United States is a ground-breaking chapter in climate advocacy. The court’s unequivocal recognition of fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause and the public trust doctrine sets a strong precedent that establishes the judiciary as a crucial player in safeguarding environmental integrity. As the case advances to trial, we will see how both sides argue to what extent climate change intersects with constitutional principles.
[1] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23 (pg.1)
[2] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 3)
[3] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 3)
[4] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 19)
[5] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 22)
[6] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 29)
[7] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 28)
[8] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 31)
[9] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 6)
[10] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 38)
[11] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 39)
[12] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 40)
[13] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 46)
[14] Juliana v. United States, D. Or., No. 6:15-cv-01517, 12/29/23. (pg. 47)
Comments