Juliana v. U.S. is a stunning landmark lawsuit filed in 2015 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 has overcome a multitude of hurdles but has yet to come to trial.
The children were between the ages of eight and 18 when the suit was filed. Now between 15 and 25, the majority of them can 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, including Held v. State of Montana – the first ever children’s constitutional climate trial in the U.S.. 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 in San Francisco 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.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs went back to the District Court in Oregon to Judge Ann Aiken, who issued the original ruling, for permission to file an amended complaint and have their evidence heard in open court. She granted that request on June 1, 2023.
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. That motion was denied on March 15, 2023.
On June 23, 2023 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed another motion to dismiss the youth-led case, one day after an online petition, signed by more than 255 organizations and 50,000 individuals, was delivered to the DOJ, urging Attorney General Garland to end opposition to the Juliana case proceeding to trial. Ironically, two days after Our Children’s Trust lawyers concluded trial in Held v. State of Montana – the first ever children’s constitutional climate trial in the U.S. A ruling in that case is expected in July, 2023.
Hold your breath…
The timeline below marks all the major events from the first filing to the present.
FYI:
Much has been written about this case. The stunning political analyst, Joel Stronberg has been covering the lawsuit in his blogs, off and on since 2018. They are so worth reading: November 2, 2018; February 12, 2019; January 21,/2020; February 16, 2021; July 28, 2021 and, again on June 12,2023 which will surely not be the last. FYI: It was written before the DOJ denial.
And a film was produced in 2021. Hailed as a superhero movie, 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. Available on Netflix.
Two days after Our Children’s Trust lawyers concluded trial in Held v. State of Montana – the first ever children’s constitutional climate trial in the U.S. – the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed another motion on June 22 to dismiss the youth-led Juliana v…
More HereU.S. Department of Justice filed another motion of June 22 to dismiss the case.
Today, less than two weeks before the first ever constitutional climate trial in U.S. history is slated to begin in Montana, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the youth plaintiffs in the landmark children’s climate case against the United States government, Juliana v. United States…
More HereU.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled on June 1, 2023 that the youth plaintiffs can amend their complaint and have their evidence heard in open court.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied 18 Republican attorneys’ general request to intervene as defendants in the children’s constitutional climate case, Juliana v. United States…
More HereU.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied on March 15, 2023 18 Republican attorneys’ general request to intervene as defendants.
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 HerePetition demands Biden DOJ ‘End Opposition to Youth Climate Justice’
The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by 16 young Alaskans who claimed long-term effects of climate change will devastate Alaska and interfere with their individual constitutional rights.
More HereAlaska SC upheld the dismissal of lawsuit
Alaska Republican Gov. Mike DunlThe states have petitioned a federal district court judge for a seat at the table when youth activists and the U.S. Department of Justice start settlement talks later this month.eavy’s administration…
More HereWhile other states are seeking to join it.
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…
TODAY
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
Oral Arguments on Motion to Amend
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 HereThe Ninth Circuit upholds the panel’s ruling.
The briefs argue the judicial branch has a responsibility to protect the youth’s constitutional rights, the children have legal standing to be heard at trial, and urgent action by the court is critical for the…
More HereSupport comes from scholars and experts, including 24 Members of U.S. Congress
To grant rehearing, a majority of the Ninth Circuit’s 29 active judges would have to agree to review the panel decision, and then a pool of 11 would hear arguments and issue a new decision.
More HerePlaintiffs want a new panel of judges to reconsider the issues
The environmental trial of the century now looks as if it is not meant to be. The young plaintiffs and their attorneys have announced their intention to petition for an en banc hearing by the…
More HereJudge Staton presented the dissenting opinion
Three federal judges heard arguments Tuesday about whether young people have a constitutional right to be protected from climate change. In the lively, hourlong hearing, the judges, from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth…
More HereA federal appeals court heard arguments
“We are filing the Young People’s brief to show that thousands of youth across America not only feel the urgency of climate action, but also understand that the youth climate lawsuit must proceed to secure…
More Here30,000 youth sign on to brief supporting the lawsuit
If the injunction is granted, it would lead to a nationwide moratorium on new fossil fuel permitting and leasing on federal lands and waters until the lawsuit is resolved.
More HereYouth file new injunction to stop new fossil fuel leases
The latest brief presented no new arguments by the government.
More HereAdministration files yet another brief to the Court of Appeals
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 HereNinth Circuit grants Interlocutory Appeal and denies Mandamus
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 HereNinth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide Whether Juliana vs. United States Goes to trial
The Department of Justice filed a motion for stay with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and hours later filed an application for stay and another petition for a writ of mandamus…
More HereAdministration files yet another motion
“Even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules,” a supporter of the plaintiffs said.
More HereSupreme Court Denies Trump Administration’s Request
The Trump administration has filed its sixth mandamus request and second to the Supreme Court in yet another attempt to stop the case from going to trial.
More HereAdministration files another petition with Supreme Court
In her ruling on Monday, Aiken rebuked claims by the Trump administration that the suit falls under the Administrative Procedures Act. As a result, the case will proceed to trial on 10/29/18.
More HereCourt largely denies Trump administration motions
A third writ of mandamus petition seeks an unprecedented and extraordinarily rare third request, just over a week before it is scheduled to go to trial.
More HereAdministration pleads with the Ninth Circuit for the third time
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 HereSupreme Court rules in favor of Youth
The Court ruled that the Juliana case can proceed toward trial and that the Trump administration had not satisfied the factors necessary for a writ of mandamus.
More HereNinth Circuit rules in favor of Youth
Arguments before the Ninth Circuit will decide whether the case goes to trial. The decision will determine if the Trump administration can evade a constitutional climate change trial.
More HereNinth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing
Oral arguments will be heard before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on 12/11/17.
More HereNinth Circuit to hear oral argument regarding trial dismissal
Ordering a stay on the lawsuit’s proceedings is a rare move: courts of appeal typically don’t get involved in lower courts’ affairs until the proceedings have progressed to trial, or at least “to a point…
More HereNinth Circuit Court of Appeals orders temporary stay
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin set the trial date before U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon.
More HereTrial date set
The Administration’s latest move is a rarely used legal maneuver. They are seeking another review of the 11/10/16 decision by Judge Ann Aiken which allowed the case to continue.
More HereAdministration files writ of mandamus petition
The groups had been ordered to submit to the court their responses to several key questions pertaining to the case, including their position on the science behind climate change. Instead of filing their response, all…
More HereDefendants file motions to withdraw
One motion isn’t enough for Trump’s administration – they filed one to put off trial preparation too. They argued that the request for records relating to climate change and communications between the government and the…
More HereAdministration files expedited appeal to overturn and delay
The fossil fuel industry claimed a “lack of sufficient knowledge to admit or deny” over 75% of the factual allegations in lawsuit. Youth filed a request for documents from the largest U.S. trade group for…
More HereYouth request records and answers
Youth file a notice with a federal court in Oregon, naming Donald J. Trump as a defendant. President Trump is substituted as named party in place of former President Barack Obama under the Federal Rules.
More HerePresident Trump named as Defendant
Federal Judge Ann Aiken rejects U.S. government and fossil fuel industries motions to dismiss. Now, the 21 plaintiffs, who range in age from 9-20, are preparing for trial in what is believed to be a…
More HereMotions to dismiss denied
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken heard oral arguments from lawyers representing all of the parties prior to making a determination about whether the case will go to trial.
More HereCourt hears oral arguments
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 HereMotions to dismiss denied
The trade associations that represent Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Koch Industries, virtually all other U.S. refiners and petrochemical manufacturers, and 625 oil and natural gas companies are named as defendants.
More HereFossil fuel defendants named
The lawsuit against the U.S. government argues that, in causing climate change, the federal government has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and has failed to protect essential public trust resources.
More HereLawsuit filed
Attorneys general from 17 states have asked to insert themselves into the case so they can oppose any proposed settlement and stop the youths’ case from proceeding to trial.
More Here17 states seeking to join opposition to the lawsuit