Juliana V. U.s.



Juliana v. U.S. is a stunning landmark lawsuit filed by 21 young people who claim that the government’s actions, and inaction, in the face of global warming violate their “fundamental constitutional rights to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property.” Dubbed the climate “trial of the century,” the case began in 2015 and has overcome a multitude of hurdles despite relentless efforts by the Trump administration to halt its progress. The children are aging and the majority of them can now vote.

A list of court orders and additional information can be found at Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit responsible for this and many other youth climate cases across the country. Julia Olson is their Chief Legal Counsel.

A youth led climate justice organization, Zero Hour, launched a drive in February 2019, to support this lawsuit. In eleven days 30,000 young people added their names to a Young People’s Brief in Support of the Juliana plaintiffs. This “friend of the court” brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 1, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, a divided federal court, having heard the case in June 2019, concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing. Our Children’s Trust filed briefs on March 12, 2020 urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to convene a new panel of 11 circuit court judges to review the January ruling.

On February 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit voted not to rehear the case. Their reasoning was that the youth plaintiffs were asking the courts to do things that only the legislative and executive branches can do. They threw them out on the doctrine of standing.

On February 16, 2021, Joel Stronberg wrote a stunning summary of the case.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs went back to the the District Court in Oregon to Judge Aiken, who issued the original ruling, for permission to file an amended complaint. That motion to reopen the case is still pending. In the meantime, Judge Aiken has directed the government DOJ and the attorneys representing the plaintiffs into mediation before retired Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin.

On June 8, 2021, Youth v Gov reported that 17 Republican state attorneys general have filed a motion to intervene in the Juliana case to oppose the Motion to Amend filed by the plaintiffs in March.

Another stunning blog from Joel Stronberg was published on 7/28/2021

Hold your breath…

The timeline below marks all the major events from the first filing to the present.

FYI: The feature documentary YOUTH v GOV follows these 21 young Americans suing the world’s most powerful government to protect their constitutional rights to a stable climate. If they win, they will change the future.

    • Youth climate plaintiffs cite novel precedent: SCOTUS’s landmark abortion ruling

      Young people who claim the federal government is violating their rights through fossil fuel-friendly policies that contribute to climate change on Tuesday cited a novel precedent to argue their lawsuit needs to go to trial: The recent landmark Supreme Court decision rolling back abortion rights.

      More Here


      Youth climate plaintiffs cite novel precedent: SCOTUS’s landmark abortion ruling

    • Petition Demands Biden DOJ ‘End Opposition to Youth Climate Justice’

      In a clear show of support for the youth who have been fighting for a landmark U.S. constitutional climate case since 2015, the People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition this week launched a petition urging the Biden administration to “end its opposition to Juliana v. United States proceeding to trial.”

      More Here


      Petition demands Biden DOJ ‘End Opposition to Youth Climate Justice’

    • Participating in settlement negotiations & awaiting rulings on Motion forLeave to FIle a Second Amended Complaint and the Motion to Intervene

      Settlement negotiations between the youth plaintiffs, their attorneys and the DOJ with Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin are ongoing. The youth plaintiffs are also awaiting a ruling on their Motion for Leave to File a…



    • Attorneys general in 6 states & NRDC file amicus briefs in support of the youth plaintiffs

      Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs also file a brief opposing the intervention motion of 18 Republican states who seek to dismiss the case.


      6 States & NRDC file briefs in support & attorneys file brief opposing intervenors

    • Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs and the DOJ present oral arguments in front of Judge Aiken


      Oral Arguments on Motion to Amend

    • The Ninth Circuit Upholds Panel Decision

      The Ninth Circuit fails to correct the legal errors in March 2020’s panel decision and upholds the panel’s ruling. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the case, but a majority of judges…

      More Here


      The Ninth Circuit upholds the panel’s ruling.

    • Government challenge to kids’ case moves forward

      The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday granted government lawyers permission to appeal lower court decisions allowing Juliana v. United States to move to trial.

      More Here


      Ninth Circuit grants Interlocutory Appeal and denies Mandamus

    • Landmark Children’s Climate Lawsuit Hits New Roadblock

      Judge Ann Aiken issued an order certifying Juliana v. United States for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In staying the case pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit, Judge Aiken maintained…

      More Here


      Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide Whether Juliana vs. United States Goes to trial

    • Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Kids Climate Case

      The Supreme Court denied the federal government’s request to halt discovery and the trial in the youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States. The court’s rejection means the case will likely proceed to trial on…

      More Here


      Supreme Court rules in favor of Youth

    • Kids clear key hurdle in their federal climate change lawsuit

      Judge Thomas Coffin of the District Court in Eugene, Oregon, ruled in favor of the Youths, characterizing the case as an “unprecedented lawsuit” addressing “government action and inaction” resulting “in carbon pollution of the atmosphere,…

      More Here


      Motions to dismiss denied