.jpeg?rev=2ce13b6df58045d28b1b40907b3c310e&la=en&h=800&w=1600&hash=9D186B4016B654CED9CC5C7F759A8939)
Youth Climate Litigation and the Legacy of Juliana
At the beginning of 2024, young American climate litigants seemed poised for success. In December 2023, the prominent case of Juliana v. United States (Case No. 6:15-CV-01517) had survived—in part—a motion to dismiss in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The same month, 18 children brought a constitutional challenge against the nation's foremost body on climate-related matters, filing the case of Genesis B. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Case No. 2:23-CV-10345) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Young environmentalists were making strides, in spite of the challenges inherent in tackling an area as rapidly evolving as climate change litigation.
Then, on May 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an order that dismissed Juliana for lack of Article III standing, without leave to amend. The May 2024 order was not a first-time decision, but rather a repeat of an earlier ruling. In January 2020, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges dismissed Juliana on a 2-1 vote, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for an injunction. The court remanded the case for dismissal, but Judge Ann Aiken of the District of Oregon instead allowed the young plaintiffs to amend their complaint. When the case returned to the Ninth Circuit, the court doubled down, saying: "Our mandate was to dismiss." In other words, Juliana should have ended four years ago. On July 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing. The remaining path forward for the suit is the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on September 12, 2024. Such petitions are rarely granted, so the Ninth Circuit's repeat dismissal may suggest that the Juliana case has finally seen its end.
Some cases, like Genesis B., are following the same blueprint as Juliana with hopes of reaching a different outcome. Genesis B. was dismissed for lack of standing on May 8, 2024, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California finding that the "Plaintiffs' attempts to distinguish Juliana are unpersuasive." However, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint 12 days later, focusing on building out their other arguments.
There have also been further developments in more locally focused cases. In Held v. Montana (CDV-2020-307), the First Judicial District Court of Montana found, on August 8, 2023, that state laws restricting agencies from considering climate change impacts violated young people's constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. On June 10, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court heard arguments on appeal, including an argument by the state that the issue of climate change cannot be adequately addressed by a state court ruling.
In Hawaii, a lawsuit filed by 13 young people against the state Department of Transportation ("HDOT") recently ended in a landmark settlement agreement. The case of Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation (Case No. ICCV-22-0000631) was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in Hawaii on June 1, 2022, with plaintiffs arguing that the state's transportation system violated the Constitution of Hawaii's public trust doctrine and right to a clean and healthful environment. The June 20, 2024, settlement recognized the constitutional right of local youth to a life-sustaining climate and committed HDOT to a plan for reaching net-negative emissions by 2045.
Despite the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Juliana—and regardless of the outcome of the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the U.S. Supreme Court—youth climate litigants are likely to continue to use a combination of strategies to pursue climate change litigation, with the case law continuing to evolve as courts rule on new arguments.
